No. 16-4250\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\\n Respondent-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.\\n Nos. 5:07-cr-00030-2; 5:11-cv-02108—John R. Adams, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 19, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 22, 2019\\n\\n Before: KEITH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Matthew D. Rowen, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.\\nMatthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.\\nON BRIEF: Matthew D. Rowen, Erin E. Murphy, Megan M. Wold, KIRKLAND & ELLIS\\nLLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Matthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. After the FBI arrested Paul Monea for money\\nlaundering, he told his attorney that the undercover agent coerced him into committing the crime.\\nThose claims turned into allegations that the government tampered with evidence.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 2\\n\\n\\nAnd eventually—after the jury convicted him—Monea found a witness claiming that the\\nundercover FBI agent lied on the stand. So he asks the court for a writ of habeas corpus, either\\nbecause his trial counsel ineffectively pursued the evidence-tampering claim, or because the\\ngovernment’s star witness perjured himself. But neither claim ends up bearing much fruit. We\\naffirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n The FBI arrested Paul Monea on December 13, 2006 after a prolonged sting operation.\\nSee United States v. Monea, 376 F. App’x 531, 533–35 (6th Cir. 2010). Undercover agent John\\nTanza posed as a man named Rizzo, a cocaine-broker who needed help cleaning cash for his\\ndrug-dealing clients. Id. at 533. He met Monea through a mutual acquaintance, purportedly in\\nsearch of legitimate businesses to invest in. Id. Eventually, Monea agreed to sell a 43-carat\\ndiamond and some real estate to Rizzo’s clients for $19 million. Id. at 534–35. But Monea was\\napprehensive about dealing in cash, so he asked Rizzo to wire him a deposit. Rizzo then sent\\nMonea $100,000 in three separate transactions—supposedly because he did not have the money\\nto wire it in one lump sum. Id. Soon after that the FBI arrested Monea for four separate money-\\nlaundering related crimes.\\n\\n Sometime later, Monea learned from an acquaintance that Tanza might not have been\\ncompletely forthcoming on the witness stand about why he wired the deposit in three separate\\ntransactions. Nancy McCann, the trustee of the Monea Family Trust, claims she overheard\\nTanza tell a colleague that he deliberately structured the $100,000 deposit as three different\\ntransactions to ensure the Government could charge Monea with three separate counts of money\\nlaundering. But when Monea’s attorney asked Tanza during trial why he wired three different\\npayments, Tanza testified that he did not have enough money to pay it out as a lump sum.\\n\\n Early on after his arrest, Monea claimed that Tanza coerced him into going along with the\\nplan by threatening him and his family. But it turned out that much of the case against Monea\\nwas captured on a wire, and the audio tapes contained no evidence of the alleged threats.\\nMonea’s claims about coercion soon turned into allegations that the Government tampered with\\nthe tapes to delete evidence of misconduct. And that’s when the problems began.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 3\\n\\n\\n In March 2007, Monea alerted his attorney, William Whitaker, to his suspicion that the\\nGovernment tampered with the tapes. Whitaker admits that he was skeptical. But he agreed to\\nmeet with a private investigator in early April to discuss the issue. The investigator, Michael\\nRobertson, proposed a significant investigation for $50,000. Whitaker pushed back. Instead,\\nthey agreed to a preliminary review of the tapes for $1,000. But no one ever paid Robertson the\\nmoney to retain him.\\n\\n Trial was scheduled to begin about a month later. Whitaker asked for a continuance, but\\nhe declined to raise the tampering issue without more evidence. He cited the voluminous record\\nand substantial number of audio recordings as grounds for the delay. The district court denied\\nhis request.\\n\\n The night before trial, Robertson contacted Whitaker about the recordings. Robertson\\nhad started listening to the tapes “out of curiosity” (because he still had not been paid) and\\ndiscovered an anomaly. R. 175, Hr’g Tr. at 89–91, PageID 5769–71. But Whitaker rebuffed\\nhim. Robertson was not qualified to testify about such issues, Whitaker said. And he would not\\nbring the issue to the court without competent evidence from a qualified witness. So the trial\\ncontinued, and Whitaker made no objection to the authenticity of the tapes as the Government\\nintroduced them.\\n\\n Then Robertson forced the issue. He found another witness and produced an affidavit\\nconfirming the anomaly. This put Whitaker in a tough spot. The evidence at trial had already\\nclosed, and the district judge was about to instruct the jury. Whitaker asked for a sidebar with\\nthe court and explained that his investigator discovered evidence suggesting that one of the tapes\\nmight have been altered. Although Robertson informed him of the issue “[o]n the eve of trial,”\\nWhitaker told the court that he chose not raise it at that time because Robertson “wasn’t qualified\\nto testify to a requisite degree.” R. 280, Trial Tr. at 869, PageID 3233.\\n\\n To put it mildly, the judge did not appreciate the timing. He chastised Whitaker for\\nsitting on the issue, stating that Whitaker “had an obligation to bring it forward and call it to the\\ncourt’s attention” as soon as he could. R. 280 at 873, PageID 3237. But the judge did not punish\\nMonea for the delay. The judge finished the trial and told Whitaker he could file a post-trial\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 4\\n\\n\\nbrief to address the issue if necessary. The judge also gave Whitaker a bit of an assist. He\\nprovided Whitaker with the name and contact information of a qualified forensic analyst who\\ncould conduct an independent examination of the audio recording. After the sidebar, the jury\\nconvicted Monea on all four counts.\\n\\n For whatever reason, Whitaker did not hire the court’s recommended independent expert.\\nHe instead retained two other individuals—a music professor and his assistant—to examine the\\nrecordings. He then moved to vacate the conviction and asked for an evidentiary hearing to\\nexplore the authenticity of the tapes.\\n\\n The district court held a six-hour hearing on October 15, 2007. It quickly became\\napparent that the court believed that neither of Monea’s witnesses was qualified to opine about\\nthe authenticity of the recordings, and it rejected their proffered testimony. The Government, on\\nthe other hand, produced several qualified witnesses to rebut Monea’s unsubstantiated claim that\\nthe tapes had been altered. Collectively they testified that it would require a complex conspiracy\\namong many different individuals to successfully alter one of these recordings. That’s because\\nTanza could not turn the device on or off on his own, the metadata showed that the audio files\\nhad not been modified, and these types of files would not play if a modification had been made.\\nMonea had no answer to this testimony.\\n\\n By the end of the hearing, the Government had provided overwhelming and unrebutted\\nevidence that the tampering claim was farfetched. So Whitaker continued to search for qualified\\nwitnesses to examine the audio recording. He found two, James Reames and Gregg Stutchman,\\nand submitted a supplemental brief about one month later. Both witnesses stated they believed\\nthe recording contains an anomaly attributable to an alteration. Whitaker asked for a second\\nhearing to put on additional testimony from Reames and Stutchman. He also asked to analyze\\nthe device.\\n\\n The district court denied Monea’s post-trial motion and did not permit Reames or\\nStutchman to testify. It did so after it “thoroughly considered” the affidavits and determined that\\nReames’s and Stutchman’s testimony would not sufficiently rebut the Government’s witnesses\\nand prove the tampering claim. See Monea, 376 F. App’x at 548–50. The court also refused\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 5\\n\\n\\nMonea’s request for access to the recording device, finding that Monea’s speculative evidence\\ndid not merit requiring the Government to turn over a highly confidential device. We upheld\\nboth decisions on appeal. See Monea, 376 F. App’x at 548–50.\\n\\n The district court judge eventually sentenced Monea to 150 months, a substantial\\ndownward variance from the 235-month recommendation under the guidelines. He imposed that\\nsentence after first expressing substantial misgivings about what he perceived to be Monea’s\\neleventh-hour gamesmanship over the audio recordings. Without the “contrived” antics, the\\njudge explained, “a variance in this case would be extraordinarily likely.” R. 216, Sentencing\\nHr’g Tr. at 142–44, PageID 2066–68. But then he backtracked a bit. He said he could set aside\\nhis frustration about the tampering issue and vary downward from the recommendation, which\\nhe ultimately did.\\n\\n Monea eventually moved for habeas relief. He asserted six grounds to vacate his\\nconviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied each one, and we\\ngranted a certificate of appealability on two. First, we granted a certificate to appeal Monea’s\\nclaim that Whitaker provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to properly investigate\\nand present the evidence-tampering claim to the trial court. Second, we granted a certificate to\\nappeal his claim that Tanza perjured himself on the witness stand. But we denied Monea’s\\nrequest to appeal whether he suffered sentencing prejudice from Whitaker’s inadequate\\nrepresentation. And finally, we certified whether the district court should have held an\\nevidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).\\n\\n II.\\n\\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of\\ncounsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686–87 (1984). Defendants claiming\\nineffective assistance must establish two things. First, that the attorney’s performance fell below\\n“prevailing professional norms.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 (1986). And\\nsecond, that the attorney’s poor performance prejudiced the defendant’s case. Id. Courts need\\nnot address the first element if the petitioner cannot prove prejudice. In fact, “[i]f it is easier to\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 6\\n\\n\\ndispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course\\nshould be followed.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.\\n\\n Proving prejudice is not easy. Monea faces a “high burden” in demonstrating “that there\\nis a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\\nproceeding would have been different.” Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525, 536 (6th Cir. 2011)\\n(internal quotation marks omitted). He attempts to do this in two ways. First, he argues that\\nWhitaker’s poor performance deprived him of a complete defense because tampering with\\nevidence amounts to a due-process violation. Second, Monea contends that his attorney’s\\ninadequate representation prejudiced him at sentencing because the district court blamed Monea\\nfor raising the issue at the eleventh hour. But even if we assume that Whitaker performed\\ndeficiently, neither claim of prejudice passes muster.\\n\\n Denial of a complete defense. Monea’s more substantive claim of prejudice is that\\nWhitaker’s lackluster representation denied him an opportunity to present a defense of\\n“outrageous government conduct.” This defense is a bit of a leprechaun, discussed by many\\ncourts but rarely—if ever—found. See United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420, 1425–26 (6th Cir.\\n1994). It arises when the government acts so outrageously that it “shocks the conscience.”\\nUnited States v. Warwick, 167 F.3d 965, 974–75 (6th Cir. 1999). When applicable, outrageous\\nconduct can be a complete defense. Id. Monea argues that tampering with evidence to hide a\\ndeath threat constitutes a rare circumstance where the government acts so outrageously as to\\nafford a defendant a complete defense. Had Whitaker raised the claim effectively, he says, the\\ncharges would have been dismissed.\\n\\n The puzzling part of Monea’s claim is that he does not offer any new evidence that a\\nbetter attorney would have discovered and presented below. See, e.g., Hill v. Mitchell, 400 F.3d\\n308, 319 (6th Cir. 2005). Rather, he focuses almost exclusively on timing. According to Monea,\\nWhitaker’s repeated failure at effectively pursuing this claim prejudiced him because the court\\nhad only a “cursory” opportunity to review the evidence by the time Whitaker found it. And that\\ncursory review did not include live testimony from Reames and Stutchman, which could have\\naltered the court’s analysis of the issue.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 7\\n\\n\\n But this argument ignores the reality of the district court’s decision denying Monea’s\\npost-trial motion and our later ruling on direct appeal. The court did not engage in a “cursory”\\nreview of the evidence. It “thoroughly considered” the affidavits from Reames and Stutchman\\nand concluded that they could not overcome the Government’s contrary evidence. Monea,\\n376 F. App’x at 548–50. In doing so, the district court expressly denied that the timing affected\\nits decision. Whitaker, for all his alleged missteps, eventually obtained the same evidence that\\nMonea now relies on—and he gave it to the court in time for the judge to consider it on the\\nmerits.\\n\\n It is not enough for Monea to argue that a different attorney would done a better job.\\nWhat matters is whether it would have made a difference. See Davis, 658 F.3d at 536. On that\\nfront, Monea provides no new evidence and no new arguments that would have altered the trial\\ncourt’s denial of his outrageous-conduct defense. Because of Monea’s failure to demonstrate\\nprejudice, we affirm the decision denying habeas relief on this issue.\\n\\n Sentencing prejudice. Monea also contends that Whitaker’s performance prejudiced him\\nat sentencing. He bases this claim on a few comments the district court judge made blaming\\nMonea for what the judge viewed as last-minute gamesmanship over the evidence-tampering\\nclaim. The judge eventually “set . . . aside” his concerns and varied downward with Monea’s\\nsentence, R. 216 at 156 & 176, PageID 2080 & 2100, but Monea argues that he would have\\nlikely received an even greater variance if Whitaker raised the claim timely. Later, the judge\\nhimself rejected this assertion. He specifically said that it would not have mattered because he\\n“was still left with a defendant who had not fully accepted responsibility for his actions and who\\nhad willfully engaged in criminal behavior while on supervised released.” R. 406, Mem. Op.\\n& Order at 9, PageID 5499.\\n\\n Regardless, we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue on the merits. Prisoners seeking\\nhabeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 do not have a general right to appeal. Before doing so, they\\nmust obtain a certificate of appealability from the circuit court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). That\\ncertificate defines (and limits) the scope of our jurisdiction. Id.; see Miller-El v. Cockrell,\\n537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). It must state the “specific issue or issues” subject to appeal.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 8\\n\\n\\n28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). And we can only certify issues for appeal if “the applicant has made a\\nsubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).\\n\\n Monea does not have a certificate to appeal the sentencing-prejudice issue—and not for\\nlack of trying. He raised five different ineffective-assistance claims in his original motion for\\nhabeas relief. Of those five, we only certified one issue for appeal—his claim that Whitaker\\nfailed to effectively present evidence that the government tampered with the tapes. Among the\\nissues we rejected was Monea’s claim that his counsel’s inadequate performance prejudiced him\\nat sentencing. That claim, we held, had no support in the record and could not be reasonably\\ndebated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). So we denied a certificate on that issue.\\n\\n Monea now attempts to graft the argument onto the ineffective-assistance claim we did\\nallow him to appeal. He contends that the issue is broad enough to include the sentencing-\\nprejudice argument we rejected on its own terms. But that finding would undermine the\\njurisdictional limit imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and our prior opinion. We have jurisdiction\\nonly to resolve the “specific issues” certified for appeal. And we rejected Monea’s request to\\ncertify whether he was prejudiced by the sentencing court’s apparent belief that Monea caused\\nthe last-minute disruption. That means we lack jurisdiction over the issue, despite his creative\\nattempt to broaden the scope of his certificate. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Monea’s second claim is that the Government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by\\npresenting perjured testimony during the trial. The “deliberate deception of court and jury by the\\npresentation of testimony known to be perjured” violates a defendant’s due-process rights. See\\nMooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935). To prevail on such a claim, Monea must show\\nthat the Government knowingly presented false testimony that materially affected the\\nproceeding. United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d 817, 822 (6th Cir. 1989). But “mere\\ninconsistencies” in the testimony will not suffice. Id. Monea must prove that the Government’s\\ntestimony was “indisputably false.” See id. at 823. And ordinarily, claims of perjury must also\\novercome a harmless-error analysis. See Rosencrantz v. Lafler, 568 F.3d 577, 583–84 (6th Cir.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 9\\n\\n\\n2009). But reaching that issue is often unnecessary because of the difficulty in proving that the\\nGovernment’s witness “testified in an indisputably false manner.” Id. at 584.\\n\\n Monea claims that Tanza lied on the stand when he explained why he structured the\\n$100,000 payment into three separate wire transfers. Tanza testified that he simply did not have\\nenough money to transfer the entire $100,000 in one lump sum. But Monea argues that this\\nexplanation was false because Nancy McCann, an acquaintance of Monea’s, overheard Tanza\\ntell a different story. She submitted an affidavit stating that Tanza admitted that he\\n“deliberately” structured the transaction as three separate wires so that the Government could\\nbring three charges against Monea. R. 377-14, McCann Dec. at ¶ 3, PageID 5169–70. This,\\nMonea argues, contradicts Tanza’s testimony during trial.\\n\\n But as Monea himself notes, McCann’s statement “is not necessarily inconsistent with\\nSpecial Agent Tanza’s trial testimony.” Reply Br. at 15. Tanza never denied that he wanted to\\nstructure the transaction so that the Government could charge Monea with three separate\\ncounts—it does not appear that anyone ever asked him that question. And it is possible that\\nTanza both did not have the funds available and wanted to send three wires to stack three\\ncharges against Monea. So even if we find McCann’s affidavit credible, it does not prove that\\nTanza’s testimony was “indisputably false.”\\n\\n In response, Monea suggests that the mere possibility of an inconsistency in Tanza’s\\ntestimony shifts the burden to the Government to prove that his statements were true. But that\\nhas the law exactly backwards. Not only are “mere inconsistencies” not enough to sustain a\\nclaim of perjury, but Monea bears the burden on this issue. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d at 822. The\\nGovernment has no obligation to prove the truth of its own testimony if Monea cannot first make\\nthe case that it was “indisputably false.” Id. Because he cannot do so, we affirm.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Finally, we deny Monea’s request to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing.\\nA district court must grant a hearing to a petitioner “[u]nless the motion and the files and records\\nof the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief[.]” 28 U.S.C.§ 2255(b).\\nAn evidentiary hearing is not required “if the petitioner’s allegations cannot be accepted as true\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 10\\n\\n\\nbecause they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than\\nstatements of fact.” Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2007). As stated\\nabove, the evidence in the record “conclusively show[s]” that Monea is not entitled to relief, and\\nan evidentiary hearing is therefore not necessary. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).\\n\\n ***\\n\\n We affirm.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4360788/\", \"author_raw\": \"NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KEITH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583535/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Paul MONEA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-22\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0008p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n PAUL MONEA, ┐\n Petitioner-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 16-4250\n v. │\n │\n │\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\n Respondent-Appellee. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.\n Nos. 5:07-cr-00030-2; 5:11-cv-02108—John R. Adams, District Judge.\n\n Argued: October 19, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: January 22, 2019\n\n Before: KEITH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Matthew D. Rowen, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.\nMatthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.\nON BRIEF: Matthew D. Rowen, Erin E. Murphy, Megan M. Wold, KIRKLAND & ELLIS\nLLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Matthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\nOFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. After the FBI arrested Paul Monea for money\nlaundering, he told his attorney that the undercover agent coerced him into committing the crime.\nThose claims turned into allegations that the government tampered with evidence.\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 2\n\n\nAnd eventually—after the jury convicted him—Monea found a witness claiming that the\nundercover FBI agent lied on the stand. So he asks the court for a writ of habeas corpus, either\nbecause his trial counsel ineffectively pursued the evidence-tampering claim, or because the\ngovernment’s star witness perjured himself. But neither claim ends up bearing much fruit. We\naffirm.\n\n I.\n\n The FBI arrested Paul Monea on December 13, 2006 after a prolonged sting operation.\nSee United States v. Monea, 376 F. App’x 531, 533–35 (6th Cir. 2010). Undercover agent John\nTanza posed as a man named Rizzo, a cocaine-broker who needed help cleaning cash for his\ndrug-dealing clients. Id. at 533. He met Monea through a mutual acquaintance, purportedly in\nsearch of legitimate businesses to invest in. Id. Eventually, Monea agreed to sell a 43-carat\ndiamond and some real estate to Rizzo’s clients for $19 million. Id. at 534–35. But Monea was\napprehensive about dealing in cash, so he asked Rizzo to wire him a deposit. Rizzo then sent\nMonea $100,000 in three separate transactions—supposedly because he did not have the money\nto wire it in one lump sum. Id. Soon after that the FBI arrested Monea for four separate money-\nlaundering related crimes.\n\n Sometime later, Monea learned from an acquaintance that Tanza might not have been\ncompletely forthcoming on the witness stand about why he wired the deposit in three separate\ntransactions. Nancy McCann, the trustee of the Monea Family Trust, claims she overheard\nTanza tell a colleague that he deliberately structured the $100,000 deposit as three different\ntransactions to ensure the Government could charge Monea with three separate counts of money\nlaundering. But when Monea’s attorney asked Tanza during trial why he wired three different\npayments, Tanza testified that he did not have enough money to pay it out as a lump sum.\n\n Early on after his arrest, Monea claimed that Tanza coerced him into going along with the\nplan by threatening him and his family. But it turned out that much of the case against Monea\nwas captured on a wire, and the audio tapes contained no evidence of the alleged threats.\nMonea’s claims about coercion soon turned into allegations that the Government tampered with\nthe tapes to delete evidence of misconduct. And that’s when the problems began.\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 3\n\n\n In March 2007, Monea alerted his attorney, William Whitaker, to his suspicion that the\nGovernment tampered with the tapes. Whitaker admits that he was skeptical. But he agreed to\nmeet with a private investigator in early April to discuss the issue. The investigator, Michael\nRobertson, proposed a significant investigation for $50,000. Whitaker pushed back. Instead,\nthey agreed to a preliminary review of the tapes for $1,000. But no one ever paid Robertson the\nmoney to retain him.\n\n Trial was scheduled to begin about a month later. Whitaker asked for a continuance, but\nhe declined to raise the tampering issue without more evidence. He cited the voluminous record\nand substantial number of audio recordings as grounds for the delay. The district court denied\nhis request.\n\n The night before trial, Robertson contacted Whitaker about the recordings. Robertson\nhad started listening to the tapes “out of curiosity” (because he still had not been paid) and\ndiscovered an anomaly. R. 175, Hr’g Tr. at 89–91, PageID 5769–71. But Whitaker rebuffed\nhim. Robertson was not qualified to testify about such issues, Whitaker said. And he would not\nbring the issue to the court without competent evidence from a qualified witness. So the trial\ncontinued, and Whitaker made no objection to the authenticity of the tapes as the Government\nintroduced them.\n\n Then Robertson forced the issue. He found another witness and produced an affidavit\nconfirming the anomaly. This put Whitaker in a tough spot. The evidence at trial had already\nclosed, and the district judge was about to instruct the jury. Whitaker asked for a sidebar with\nthe court and explained that his investigator discovered evidence suggesting that one of the tapes\nmight have been altered. Although Robertson informed him of the issue “[o]n the eve of trial,”\nWhitaker told the court that he chose not raise it at that time because Robertson “wasn’t qualified\nto testify to a requisite degree.” R. 280, Trial Tr. at 869, PageID 3233.\n\n To put it mildly, the judge did not appreciate the timing. He chastised Whitaker for\nsitting on the issue, stating that Whitaker “had an obligation to bring it forward and call it to the\ncourt’s attention” as soon as he could. R. 280 at 873, PageID 3237. But the judge did not punish\nMonea for the delay. The judge finished the trial and told Whitaker he could file a post-trial\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 4\n\n\nbrief to address the issue if necessary. The judge also gave Whitaker a bit of an assist. He\nprovided Whitaker with the name and contact information of a qualified forensic analyst who\ncould conduct an independent examination of the audio recording. After the sidebar, the jury\nconvicted Monea on all four counts.\n\n For whatever reason, Whitaker did not hire the court’s recommended independent expert.\nHe instead retained two other individuals—a music professor and his assistant—to examine the\nrecordings. He then moved to vacate the conviction and asked for an evidentiary hearing to\nexplore the authenticity of the tapes.\n\n The district court held a six-hour hearing on October 15, 2007. It quickly became\napparent that the court believed that neither of Monea’s witnesses was qualified to opine about\nthe authenticity of the recordings, and it rejected their proffered testimony. The Government, on\nthe other hand, produced several qualified witnesses to rebut Monea’s unsubstantiated claim that\nthe tapes had been altered. Collectively they testified that it would require a complex conspiracy\namong many different individuals to successfully alter one of these recordings. That’s because\nTanza could not turn the device on or off on his own, the metadata showed that the audio files\nhad not been modified, and these types of files would not play if a modification had been made.\nMonea had no answer to this testimony.\n\n By the end of the hearing, the Government had provided overwhelming and unrebutted\nevidence that the tampering claim was farfetched. So Whitaker continued to search for qualified\nwitnesses to examine the audio recording. He found two, James Reames and Gregg Stutchman,\nand submitted a supplemental brief about one month later. Both witnesses stated they believed\nthe recording contains an anomaly attributable to an alteration. Whitaker asked for a second\nhearing to put on additional testimony from Reames and Stutchman. He also asked to analyze\nthe device.\n\n The district court denied Monea’s post-trial motion and did not permit Reames or\nStutchman to testify. It did so after it “thoroughly considered” the affidavits and determined that\nReames’s and Stutchman’s testimony would not sufficiently rebut the Government’s witnesses\nand prove the tampering claim. See Monea, 376 F. App’x at 548–50. The court also refused\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 5\n\n\nMonea’s request for access to the recording device, finding that Monea’s speculative evidence\ndid not merit requiring the Government to turn over a highly confidential device. We upheld\nboth decisions on appeal. See Monea, 376 F. App’x at 548–50.\n\n The district court judge eventually sentenced Monea to 150 months, a substantial\ndownward variance from the 235-month recommendation under the guidelines. He imposed that\nsentence after first expressing substantial misgivings about what he perceived to be Monea’s\neleventh-hour gamesmanship over the audio recordings. Without the “contrived” antics, the\njudge explained, “a variance in this case would be extraordinarily likely.” R. 216, Sentencing\nHr’g Tr. at 142–44, PageID 2066–68. But then he backtracked a bit. He said he could set aside\nhis frustration about the tampering issue and vary downward from the recommendation, which\nhe ultimately did.\n\n Monea eventually moved for habeas relief. He asserted six grounds to vacate his\nconviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied each one, and we\ngranted a certificate of appealability on two. First, we granted a certificate to appeal Monea’s\nclaim that Whitaker provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to properly investigate\nand present the evidence-tampering claim to the trial court. Second, we granted a certificate to\nappeal his claim that Tanza perjured himself on the witness stand. But we denied Monea’s\nrequest to appeal whether he suffered sentencing prejudice from Whitaker’s inadequate\nrepresentation. And finally, we certified whether the district court should have held an\nevidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).\n\n II.\n\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of\ncounsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686–87 (1984). Defendants claiming\nineffective assistance must establish two things. First, that the attorney’s performance fell below\n“prevailing professional norms.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 (1986). And\nsecond, that the attorney’s poor performance prejudiced the defendant’s case. Id. Courts need\nnot address the first element if the petitioner cannot prove prejudice. In fact, “[i]f it is easier to\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 6\n\n\ndispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course\nshould be followed.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.\n\n Proving prejudice is not easy. Monea faces a “high burden” in demonstrating “that there\nis a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\nproceeding would have been different.” Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525, 536 (6th Cir. 2011)\n(internal quotation marks omitted). He attempts to do this in two ways. First, he argues that\nWhitaker’s poor performance deprived him of a complete defense because tampering with\nevidence amounts to a due-process violation. Second, Monea contends that his attorney’s\ninadequate representation prejudiced him at sentencing because the district court blamed Monea\nfor raising the issue at the eleventh hour. But even if we assume that Whitaker performed\ndeficiently, neither claim of prejudice passes muster.\n\n Denial of a complete defense. Monea’s more substantive claim of prejudice is that\nWhitaker’s lackluster representation denied him an opportunity to present a defense of\n“outrageous government conduct.” This defense is a bit of a leprechaun, discussed by many\ncourts but rarely—if ever—found. See United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420, 1425–26 (6th Cir.\n1994). It arises when the government acts so outrageously that it “shocks the conscience.”\nUnited States v. Warwick, 167 F.3d 965, 974–75 (6th Cir. 1999). When applicable, outrageous\nconduct can be a complete defense. Id. Monea argues that tampering with evidence to hide a\ndeath threat constitutes a rare circumstance where the government acts so outrageously as to\nafford a defendant a complete defense. Had Whitaker raised the claim effectively, he says, the\ncharges would have been dismissed.\n\n The puzzling part of Monea’s claim is that he does not offer any new evidence that a\nbetter attorney would have discovered and presented below. See, e.g., Hill v. Mitchell, 400 F.3d\n308, 319 (6th Cir. 2005). Rather, he focuses almost exclusively on timing. According to Monea,\nWhitaker’s repeated failure at effectively pursuing this claim prejudiced him because the court\nhad only a “cursory” opportunity to review the evidence by the time Whitaker found it. And that\ncursory review did not include live testimony from Reames and Stutchman, which could have\naltered the court’s analysis of the issue.\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 7\n\n\n But this argument ignores the reality of the district court’s decision denying Monea’s\npost-trial motion and our later ruling on direct appeal. The court did not engage in a “cursory”\nreview of the evidence. It “thoroughly considered” the affidavits from Reames and Stutchman\nand concluded that they could not overcome the Government’s contrary evidence. Monea,\n376 F. App’x at 548–50. In doing so, the district court expressly denied that the timing affected\nits decision. Whitaker, for all his alleged missteps, eventually obtained the same evidence that\nMonea now relies on—and he gave it to the court in time for the judge to consider it on the\nmerits.\n\n It is not enough for Monea to argue that a different attorney would done a better job.\nWhat matters is whether it would have made a difference. See Davis, 658 F.3d at 536. On that\nfront, Monea provides no new evidence and no new arguments that would have altered the trial\ncourt’s denial of his outrageous-conduct defense. Because of Monea’s failure to demonstrate\nprejudice, we affirm the decision denying habeas relief on this issue.\n\n Sentencing prejudice. Monea also contends that Whitaker’s performance prejudiced him\nat sentencing. He bases this claim on a few comments the district court judge made blaming\nMonea for what the judge viewed as last-minute gamesmanship over the evidence-tampering\nclaim. The judge eventually “set . . . aside” his concerns and varied downward with Monea’s\nsentence, R. 216 at 156 & 176, PageID 2080 & 2100, but Monea argues that he would have\nlikely received an even greater variance if Whitaker raised the claim timely. Later, the judge\nhimself rejected this assertion. He specifically said that it would not have mattered because he\n“was still left with a defendant who had not fully accepted responsibility for his actions and who\nhad willfully engaged in criminal behavior while on supervised released.” R. 406, Mem. Op.\n& Order at 9, PageID 5499.\n\n Regardless, we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue on the merits. Prisoners seeking\nhabeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 do not have a general right to appeal. Before doing so, they\nmust obtain a certificate of appealability from the circuit court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). That\ncertificate defines (and limits) the scope of our jurisdiction. Id.; see Miller-El v. Cockrell,\n537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). It must state the “specific issue or issues” subject to appeal.\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 8\n\n\n28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). And we can only certify issues for appeal if “the applicant has made a\nsubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).\n\n Monea does not have a certificate to appeal the sentencing-prejudice issue—and not for\nlack of trying. He raised five different ineffective-assistance claims in his original motion for\nhabeas relief. Of those five, we only certified one issue for appeal—his claim that Whitaker\nfailed to effectively present evidence that the government tampered with the tapes. Among the\nissues we rejected was Monea’s claim that his counsel’s inadequate performance prejudiced him\nat sentencing. That claim, we held, had no support in the record and could not be reasonably\ndebated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). So we denied a certificate on that issue.\n\n Monea now attempts to graft the argument onto the ineffective-assistance claim we did\nallow him to appeal. He contends that the issue is broad enough to include the sentencing-\nprejudice argument we rejected on its own terms. But that finding would undermine the\njurisdictional limit imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and our prior opinion. We have jurisdiction\nonly to resolve the “specific issues” certified for appeal. And we rejected Monea’s request to\ncertify whether he was prejudiced by the sentencing court’s apparent belief that Monea caused\nthe last-minute disruption. That means we lack jurisdiction over the issue, despite his creative\nattempt to broaden the scope of his certificate. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial.\n\n III.\n\n Monea’s second claim is that the Government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by\npresenting perjured testimony during the trial. The “deliberate deception of court and jury by the\npresentation of testimony known to be perjured” violates a defendant’s due-process rights. See\nMooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935). To prevail on such a claim, Monea must show\nthat the Government knowingly presented false testimony that materially affected the\nproceeding. United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d 817, 822 (6th Cir. 1989). But “mere\ninconsistencies” in the testimony will not suffice. Id. Monea must prove that the Government’s\ntestimony was “indisputably false.” See id. at 823. And ordinarily, claims of perjury must also\novercome a harmless-error analysis. See Rosencrantz v. Lafler, 568 F.3d 577, 583–84 (6th Cir.\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 9\n\n\n2009). But reaching that issue is often unnecessary because of the difficulty in proving that the\nGovernment’s witness “testified in an indisputably false manner.” Id. at 584.\n\n Monea claims that Tanza lied on the stand when he explained why he structured the\n$100,000 payment into three separate wire transfers. Tanza testified that he simply did not have\nenough money to transfer the entire $100,000 in one lump sum. But Monea argues that this\nexplanation was false because Nancy McCann, an acquaintance of Monea’s, overheard Tanza\ntell a different story. She submitted an affidavit stating that Tanza admitted that he\n“deliberately” structured the transaction as three separate wires so that the Government could\nbring three charges against Monea. R. 377-14, McCann Dec. at ¶ 3, PageID 5169–70. This,\nMonea argues, contradicts Tanza’s testimony during trial.\n\n But as Monea himself notes, McCann’s statement “is not necessarily inconsistent with\nSpecial Agent Tanza’s trial testimony.” Reply Br. at 15. Tanza never denied that he wanted to\nstructure the transaction so that the Government could charge Monea with three separate\ncounts—it does not appear that anyone ever asked him that question. And it is possible that\nTanza both did not have the funds available and wanted to send three wires to stack three\ncharges against Monea. So even if we find McCann’s affidavit credible, it does not prove that\nTanza’s testimony was “indisputably false.”\n\n In response, Monea suggests that the mere possibility of an inconsistency in Tanza’s\ntestimony shifts the burden to the Government to prove that his statements were true. But that\nhas the law exactly backwards. Not only are “mere inconsistencies” not enough to sustain a\nclaim of perjury, but Monea bears the burden on this issue. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d at 822. The\nGovernment has no obligation to prove the truth of its own testimony if Monea cannot first make\nthe case that it was “indisputably false.” Id. Because he cannot do so, we affirm.\n\n IV.\n\n Finally, we deny Monea’s request to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing.\nA district court must grant a hearing to a petitioner “[u]nless the motion and the files and records\nof the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief[.]” 28 U.S.C.§ 2255(b).\nAn evidentiary hearing is not required “if the petitioner’s allegations cannot be accepted as true\n\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 10\n\n\nbecause they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than\nstatements of fact.” Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2007). As stated\nabove, the evidence in the record “conclusively show[s]” that Monea is not entitled to relief, and\nan evidentiary hearing is therefore not necessary. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).\n\n ***\n\n We affirm.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Paul MONEA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-22\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0008p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n PAUL MONEA, ┐\\n Petitioner-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 16-4250\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │\\n Respondent-Appellee. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.\\n Nos. 5:07-cr-00030-2; 5:11-cv-02108—John R. Adams, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: October 19, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 22, 2019\\n\\n Before: KEITH, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Matthew D. Rowen, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.\\nMatthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.\\nON BRIEF: Matthew D. Rowen, Erin E. Murphy, Megan M. Wold, KIRKLAND & ELLIS\\nLLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Matthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. After the FBI arrested Paul Monea for money\\nlaundering, he told his attorney that the undercover agent coerced him into committing the crime.\\nThose claims turned into allegations that the government tampered with evidence.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 2\\n\\n\\nAnd eventually—after the jury convicted him—Monea found a witness claiming that the\\nundercover FBI agent lied on the stand. So he asks the court for a writ of habeas corpus, either\\nbecause his trial counsel ineffectively pursued the evidence-tampering claim, or because the\\ngovernment’s star witness perjured himself. But neither claim ends up bearing much fruit. We\\naffirm.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n The FBI arrested Paul Monea on December 13, 2006 after a prolonged sting operation.\\nSee United States v. Monea, 376 F. App’x 531, 533–35 (6th Cir. 2010). Undercover agent John\\nTanza posed as a man named Rizzo, a cocaine-broker who needed help cleaning cash for his\\ndrug-dealing clients. Id. at 533. He met Monea through a mutual acquaintance, purportedly in\\nsearch of legitimate businesses to invest in. Id. Eventually, Monea agreed to sell a 43-carat\\ndiamond and some real estate to Rizzo’s clients for $19 million. Id. at 534–35. But Monea was\\napprehensive about dealing in cash, so he asked Rizzo to wire him a deposit. Rizzo then sent\\nMonea $100,000 in three separate transactions—supposedly because he did not have the money\\nto wire it in one lump sum. Id. Soon after that the FBI arrested Monea for four separate money-\\nlaundering related crimes.\\n\\n Sometime later, Monea learned from an acquaintance that Tanza might not have been\\ncompletely forthcoming on the witness stand about why he wired the deposit in three separate\\ntransactions. Nancy McCann, the trustee of the Monea Family Trust, claims she overheard\\nTanza tell a colleague that he deliberately structured the $100,000 deposit as three different\\ntransactions to ensure the Government could charge Monea with three separate counts of money\\nlaundering. But when Monea’s attorney asked Tanza during trial why he wired three different\\npayments, Tanza testified that he did not have enough money to pay it out as a lump sum.\\n\\n Early on after his arrest, Monea claimed that Tanza coerced him into going along with the\\nplan by threatening him and his family. But it turned out that much of the case against Monea\\nwas captured on a wire, and the audio tapes contained no evidence of the alleged threats.\\nMonea’s claims about coercion soon turned into allegations that the Government tampered with\\nthe tapes to delete evidence of misconduct. And that’s when the problems began.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 3\\n\\n\\n In March 2007, Monea alerted his attorney, William Whitaker, to his suspicion that the\\nGovernment tampered with the tapes. Whitaker admits that he was skeptical. But he agreed to\\nmeet with a private investigator in early April to discuss the issue. The investigator, Michael\\nRobertson, proposed a significant investigation for $50,000. Whitaker pushed back. Instead,\\nthey agreed to a preliminary review of the tapes for $1,000. But no one ever paid Robertson the\\nmoney to retain him.\\n\\n Trial was scheduled to begin about a month later. Whitaker asked for a continuance, but\\nhe declined to raise the tampering issue without more evidence. He cited the voluminous record\\nand substantial number of audio recordings as grounds for the delay. The district court denied\\nhis request.\\n\\n The night before trial, Robertson contacted Whitaker about the recordings. Robertson\\nhad started listening to the tapes “out of curiosity” (because he still had not been paid) and\\ndiscovered an anomaly. R. 175, Hr’g Tr. at 89–91, PageID 5769–71. But Whitaker rebuffed\\nhim. Robertson was not qualified to testify about such issues, Whitaker said. And he would not\\nbring the issue to the court without competent evidence from a qualified witness. So the trial\\ncontinued, and Whitaker made no objection to the authenticity of the tapes as the Government\\nintroduced them.\\n\\n Then Robertson forced the issue. He found another witness and produced an affidavit\\nconfirming the anomaly. This put Whitaker in a tough spot. The evidence at trial had already\\nclosed, and the district judge was about to instruct the jury. Whitaker asked for a sidebar with\\nthe court and explained that his investigator discovered evidence suggesting that one of the tapes\\nmight have been altered. Although Robertson informed him of the issue “[o]n the eve of trial,”\\nWhitaker told the court that he chose not raise it at that time because Robertson “wasn’t qualified\\nto testify to a requisite degree.” R. 280, Trial Tr. at 869, PageID 3233.\\n\\n To put it mildly, the judge did not appreciate the timing. He chastised Whitaker for\\nsitting on the issue, stating that Whitaker “had an obligation to bring it forward and call it to the\\ncourt’s attention” as soon as he could. R. 280 at 873, PageID 3237. But the judge did not punish\\nMonea for the delay. The judge finished the trial and told Whitaker he could file a post-trial\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 4\\n\\n\\nbrief to address the issue if necessary. The judge also gave Whitaker a bit of an assist. He\\nprovided Whitaker with the name and contact information of a qualified forensic analyst who\\ncould conduct an independent examination of the audio recording. After the sidebar, the jury\\nconvicted Monea on all four counts.\\n\\n For whatever reason, Whitaker did not hire the court’s recommended independent expert.\\nHe instead retained two other individuals—a music professor and his assistant—to examine the\\nrecordings. He then moved to vacate the conviction and asked for an evidentiary hearing to\\nexplore the authenticity of the tapes.\\n\\n The district court held a six-hour hearing on October 15, 2007. It quickly became\\napparent that the court believed that neither of Monea’s witnesses was qualified to opine about\\nthe authenticity of the recordings, and it rejected their proffered testimony. The Government, on\\nthe other hand, produced several qualified witnesses to rebut Monea’s unsubstantiated claim that\\nthe tapes had been altered. Collectively they testified that it would require a complex conspiracy\\namong many different individuals to successfully alter one of these recordings. That’s because\\nTanza could not turn the device on or off on his own, the metadata showed that the audio files\\nhad not been modified, and these types of files would not play if a modification had been made.\\nMonea had no answer to this testimony.\\n\\n By the end of the hearing, the Government had provided overwhelming and unrebutted\\nevidence that the tampering claim was farfetched. So Whitaker continued to search for qualified\\nwitnesses to examine the audio recording. He found two, James Reames and Gregg Stutchman,\\nand submitted a supplemental brief about one month later. Both witnesses stated they believed\\nthe recording contains an anomaly attributable to an alteration. Whitaker asked for a second\\nhearing to put on additional testimony from Reames and Stutchman. He also asked to analyze\\nthe device.\\n\\n The district court denied Monea’s post-trial motion and did not permit Reames or\\nStutchman to testify. It did so after it “thoroughly considered” the affidavits and determined that\\nReames’s and Stutchman’s testimony would not sufficiently rebut the Government’s witnesses\\nand prove the tampering claim. See Monea, 376 F. App’x at 548–50. The court also refused\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 5\\n\\n\\nMonea’s request for access to the recording device, finding that Monea’s speculative evidence\\ndid not merit requiring the Government to turn over a highly confidential device. We upheld\\nboth decisions on appeal. See Monea, 376 F. App’x at 548–50.\\n\\n The district court judge eventually sentenced Monea to 150 months, a substantial\\ndownward variance from the 235-month recommendation under the guidelines. He imposed that\\nsentence after first expressing substantial misgivings about what he perceived to be Monea’s\\neleventh-hour gamesmanship over the audio recordings. Without the “contrived” antics, the\\njudge explained, “a variance in this case would be extraordinarily likely.” R. 216, Sentencing\\nHr’g Tr. at 142–44, PageID 2066–68. But then he backtracked a bit. He said he could set aside\\nhis frustration about the tampering issue and vary downward from the recommendation, which\\nhe ultimately did.\\n\\n Monea eventually moved for habeas relief. He asserted six grounds to vacate his\\nconviction and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied each one, and we\\ngranted a certificate of appealability on two. First, we granted a certificate to appeal Monea’s\\nclaim that Whitaker provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to properly investigate\\nand present the evidence-tampering claim to the trial court. Second, we granted a certificate to\\nappeal his claim that Tanza perjured himself on the witness stand. But we denied Monea’s\\nrequest to appeal whether he suffered sentencing prejudice from Whitaker’s inadequate\\nrepresentation. And finally, we certified whether the district court should have held an\\nevidentiary hearing under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).\\n\\n II.\\n\\n The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to effective assistance of\\ncounsel. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686–87 (1984). Defendants claiming\\nineffective assistance must establish two things. First, that the attorney’s performance fell below\\n“prevailing professional norms.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 381 (1986). And\\nsecond, that the attorney’s poor performance prejudiced the defendant’s case. Id. Courts need\\nnot address the first element if the petitioner cannot prove prejudice. In fact, “[i]f it is easier to\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 6\\n\\n\\ndispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course\\nshould be followed.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.\\n\\n Proving prejudice is not easy. Monea faces a “high burden” in demonstrating “that there\\nis a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the\\nproceeding would have been different.” Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525, 536 (6th Cir. 2011)\\n(internal quotation marks omitted). He attempts to do this in two ways. First, he argues that\\nWhitaker’s poor performance deprived him of a complete defense because tampering with\\nevidence amounts to a due-process violation. Second, Monea contends that his attorney’s\\ninadequate representation prejudiced him at sentencing because the district court blamed Monea\\nfor raising the issue at the eleventh hour. But even if we assume that Whitaker performed\\ndeficiently, neither claim of prejudice passes muster.\\n\\n Denial of a complete defense. Monea’s more substantive claim of prejudice is that\\nWhitaker’s lackluster representation denied him an opportunity to present a defense of\\n“outrageous government conduct.” This defense is a bit of a leprechaun, discussed by many\\ncourts but rarely—if ever—found. See United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420, 1425–26 (6th Cir.\\n1994). It arises when the government acts so outrageously that it “shocks the conscience.”\\nUnited States v. Warwick, 167 F.3d 965, 974–75 (6th Cir. 1999). When applicable, outrageous\\nconduct can be a complete defense. Id. Monea argues that tampering with evidence to hide a\\ndeath threat constitutes a rare circumstance where the government acts so outrageously as to\\nafford a defendant a complete defense. Had Whitaker raised the claim effectively, he says, the\\ncharges would have been dismissed.\\n\\n The puzzling part of Monea’s claim is that he does not offer any new evidence that a\\nbetter attorney would have discovered and presented below. See, e.g., Hill v. Mitchell, 400 F.3d\\n308, 319 (6th Cir. 2005). Rather, he focuses almost exclusively on timing. According to Monea,\\nWhitaker’s repeated failure at effectively pursuing this claim prejudiced him because the court\\nhad only a “cursory” opportunity to review the evidence by the time Whitaker found it. And that\\ncursory review did not include live testimony from Reames and Stutchman, which could have\\naltered the court’s analysis of the issue.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 7\\n\\n\\n But this argument ignores the reality of the district court’s decision denying Monea’s\\npost-trial motion and our later ruling on direct appeal. The court did not engage in a “cursory”\\nreview of the evidence. It “thoroughly considered” the affidavits from Reames and Stutchman\\nand concluded that they could not overcome the Government’s contrary evidence. Monea,\\n376 F. App’x at 548–50. In doing so, the district court expressly denied that the timing affected\\nits decision. Whitaker, for all his alleged missteps, eventually obtained the same evidence that\\nMonea now relies on—and he gave it to the court in time for the judge to consider it on the\\nmerits.\\n\\n It is not enough for Monea to argue that a different attorney would done a better job.\\nWhat matters is whether it would have made a difference. See Davis, 658 F.3d at 536. On that\\nfront, Monea provides no new evidence and no new arguments that would have altered the trial\\ncourt’s denial of his outrageous-conduct defense. Because of Monea’s failure to demonstrate\\nprejudice, we affirm the decision denying habeas relief on this issue.\\n\\n Sentencing prejudice. Monea also contends that Whitaker’s performance prejudiced him\\nat sentencing. He bases this claim on a few comments the district court judge made blaming\\nMonea for what the judge viewed as last-minute gamesmanship over the evidence-tampering\\nclaim. The judge eventually “set . . . aside” his concerns and varied downward with Monea’s\\nsentence, R. 216 at 156 & 176, PageID 2080 & 2100, but Monea argues that he would have\\nlikely received an even greater variance if Whitaker raised the claim timely. Later, the judge\\nhimself rejected this assertion. He specifically said that it would not have mattered because he\\n“was still left with a defendant who had not fully accepted responsibility for his actions and who\\nhad willfully engaged in criminal behavior while on supervised released.” R. 406, Mem. Op.\\n& Order at 9, PageID 5499.\\n\\n Regardless, we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue on the merits. Prisoners seeking\\nhabeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 do not have a general right to appeal. Before doing so, they\\nmust obtain a certificate of appealability from the circuit court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). That\\ncertificate defines (and limits) the scope of our jurisdiction. Id.; see Miller-El v. Cockrell,\\n537 U.S. 322, 335–36 (2003). It must state the “specific issue or issues” subject to appeal.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 8\\n\\n\\n28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). And we can only certify issues for appeal if “the applicant has made a\\nsubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).\\n\\n Monea does not have a certificate to appeal the sentencing-prejudice issue—and not for\\nlack of trying. He raised five different ineffective-assistance claims in his original motion for\\nhabeas relief. Of those five, we only certified one issue for appeal—his claim that Whitaker\\nfailed to effectively present evidence that the government tampered with the tapes. Among the\\nissues we rejected was Monea’s claim that his counsel’s inadequate performance prejudiced him\\nat sentencing. That claim, we held, had no support in the record and could not be reasonably\\ndebated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). So we denied a certificate on that issue.\\n\\n Monea now attempts to graft the argument onto the ineffective-assistance claim we did\\nallow him to appeal. He contends that the issue is broad enough to include the sentencing-\\nprejudice argument we rejected on its own terms. But that finding would undermine the\\njurisdictional limit imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and our prior opinion. We have jurisdiction\\nonly to resolve the “specific issues” certified for appeal. And we rejected Monea’s request to\\ncertify whether he was prejudiced by the sentencing court’s apparent belief that Monea caused\\nthe last-minute disruption. That means we lack jurisdiction over the issue, despite his creative\\nattempt to broaden the scope of his certificate. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Monea’s second claim is that the Government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by\\npresenting perjured testimony during the trial. The “deliberate deception of court and jury by the\\npresentation of testimony known to be perjured” violates a defendant’s due-process rights. See\\nMooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 112 (1935). To prevail on such a claim, Monea must show\\nthat the Government knowingly presented false testimony that materially affected the\\nproceeding. United States v. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d 817, 822 (6th Cir. 1989). But “mere\\ninconsistencies” in the testimony will not suffice. Id. Monea must prove that the Government’s\\ntestimony was “indisputably false.” See id. at 823. And ordinarily, claims of perjury must also\\novercome a harmless-error analysis. See Rosencrantz v. Lafler, 568 F.3d 577, 583–84 (6th Cir.\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 9\\n\\n\\n2009). But reaching that issue is often unnecessary because of the difficulty in proving that the\\nGovernment’s witness “testified in an indisputably false manner.” Id. at 584.\\n\\n Monea claims that Tanza lied on the stand when he explained why he structured the\\n$100,000 payment into three separate wire transfers. Tanza testified that he simply did not have\\nenough money to transfer the entire $100,000 in one lump sum. But Monea argues that this\\nexplanation was false because Nancy McCann, an acquaintance of Monea’s, overheard Tanza\\ntell a different story. She submitted an affidavit stating that Tanza admitted that he\\n“deliberately” structured the transaction as three separate wires so that the Government could\\nbring three charges against Monea. R. 377-14, McCann Dec. at ¶ 3, PageID 5169–70. This,\\nMonea argues, contradicts Tanza’s testimony during trial.\\n\\n But as Monea himself notes, McCann’s statement “is not necessarily inconsistent with\\nSpecial Agent Tanza’s trial testimony.” Reply Br. at 15. Tanza never denied that he wanted to\\nstructure the transaction so that the Government could charge Monea with three separate\\ncounts—it does not appear that anyone ever asked him that question. And it is possible that\\nTanza both did not have the funds available and wanted to send three wires to stack three\\ncharges against Monea. So even if we find McCann’s affidavit credible, it does not prove that\\nTanza’s testimony was “indisputably false.”\\n\\n In response, Monea suggests that the mere possibility of an inconsistency in Tanza’s\\ntestimony shifts the burden to the Government to prove that his statements were true. But that\\nhas the law exactly backwards. Not only are “mere inconsistencies” not enough to sustain a\\nclaim of perjury, but Monea bears the burden on this issue. Lochmondy, 890 F.2d at 822. The\\nGovernment has no obligation to prove the truth of its own testimony if Monea cannot first make\\nthe case that it was “indisputably false.” Id. Because he cannot do so, we affirm.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n Finally, we deny Monea’s request to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing.\\nA district court must grant a hearing to a petitioner “[u]nless the motion and the files and records\\nof the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief[.]” 28 U.S.C.§ 2255(b).\\nAn evidentiary hearing is not required “if the petitioner’s allegations cannot be accepted as true\\n\\f No. 16-4250 Monea v. United States Page 10\\n\\n\\nbecause they are contradicted by the record, inherently incredible, or conclusions rather than\\nstatements of fact.” Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325, 333 (6th Cir. 2007). As stated\\nabove, the evidence in the record “conclusively show[s]” that Monea is not entitled to relief, and\\nan evidentiary hearing is therefore not necessary. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).\\n\\n ***\\n\\n We affirm.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":157,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4583708,"string":"4,583,708"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald BEDFORD, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Ronald Bedford"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-23"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-5627"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Daughtrey, Gibbons, Griffin\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0009p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5627\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n RONALD BEDFORD, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.\\n No. 2:17-cr-20165-1—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: December 5, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 23, 2019\\n\\n Before: DAUGHTREY, GIBBONS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: David M. Bell, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Memphis, Tennessee, for\\nAppellant. Christopher E. Cotten, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Memphis,\\nTennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David M. Bell, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,\\nMemphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Christopher E. Cotten, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In an act of road rage, Ronald Bedford fired\\ntwo shots at a truck driver while they both headed westbound on Interstate 40 (“I-40”) in\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 2\\n\\n\\nTennessee. The truck driver, P.D., was employed by P&R Trucking, a private trucking company\\nthat had a contract with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) to transport mail. At the time\\nof the shooting, P.D. was carrying U.S. mail. Bedford was charged with forcibly assaulting,\\nresisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a person assisting officers and\\nemployees of the United States, while that person was engaged in the performance of official\\nduties, and in doing so, using a dangerous weapon, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), (b).\\nBedford then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the\\ntruck driver was not an officer or employee of the United States within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 1114, which is incorporated in 18 U.S.C. § 111. The district court denied the motion, finding\\nthat the truck driver was a person assisting a federal officer or employee, and the truck driver\\ntherefore fell within the statute’s reach. Bedford now appeals that denial. In this case of first\\nimpression for our court, we agree with the district court that when a private mail carrier,\\npursuant to formal contract, carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS, he assists an officer or\\nemployee of the United States in the performance of official duties. We therefore affirm\\nBedford’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), (b).\\n\\n I.\\n\\n P&R Trucking, based in Sparta, Tennessee, is a private trucking company that contracts\\nwith the USPS to transport mail. P&R “began as strictly a contractor for the USPS” and now\\nprovides contract as well as freight services. P&R TRUCKING, INC., http://prtrucking.us/sparta-\\nfreight-services (last visited Nov. 14, 2018). P&R is just one of many private trucking\\ncompanies with whom the USPS contracts to provide mail delivery services.\\n\\n On August 7, 2016, P.D., a truck driver for P&R Trucking, was transporting U.S. mail for\\nthe USPS from Cookeville to the USPS Network Distribution Center in Memphis, Tennessee,\\nwhen he encountered a car driven by defendant Robert Bedford on I-40 West. As they\\nmaneuvered around each other and a construction zone on the I-40 West and I-240 West\\ninterchange, Bedford pulled in front of P.D., blocked the left lane and left shoulder, and exited\\nhis vehicle. P.D. stated that it appeared that Bedford intended to cause an accident. P.D. then\\nreversed his truck, went around Bedford’s vehicle, and continued down 1-40 West. As P.D.\\napproached the Warford Street exit, however, Bedford caught up and pulled up next to the left\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 3\\n\\n\\nfender of the truck. Bedford then fired two shots into the truck before exiting I-40 onto Warford\\nStreet. Subsequent investigation of the truck revealed that bullets struck two of the rear driver’s\\nside tires and the frame of the trailer near the rear axle.\\n\\n Uninjured but “shaken,” P.D. called 911, provided Bedford’s license plate number, and\\nthen continued on to the USPS Network Distribution Center in Memphis. CA6 R. 39,\\nPresentence Report, Page ID 106. In response to P.D.’s call, officers with the Memphis Police\\nDepartment located Bedford on Warford Street, just past the off-ramp from I-40 West. The\\nofficers detained him and searched his car, finding a loaded Ruger 9mm handgun in his glove\\nbox. Officers then placed Bedford under arrest and impounded his vehicle.\\n\\n In June 2017, a federal grand returned a one-count indictment charging Bedford. The\\nindictment alleged:\\n\\n On or about August 7, 2016 in the Western District of Tennessee, the defendant,\\n Ronald Bedford, did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and\\n interfere with P.D., a person assisting officers and employees of the United States\\n Postal Service, while P.D. was engaged in the performance of his official duties,\\n and in doing so, utilized a dangerous weapon, that is, a handgun, in violation of\\n Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1) and (b).1\\n\\nDE 1, Indictment, Page ID 1. Section 111(a) applies to “whoever forcibly assaults, resists,\\nopposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this\\ntitle while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)\\n(emphasis added). Those designated in § 1114 include:\\n\\n any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the\\n United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services)\\n while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of\\n official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the\\n performance of such duties or on account of that assistance . . . .\\n\\n§ 1114 (emphasis added).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 118 U.S.C. § 111(b) enhances the penalty for acts committed with a deadly or dangerous weapon.\\n18 U.S.C. § 111(b).\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 4\\n\\n\\n In October 2017, Bedford filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction\\nunder Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b). He argued that P.D. was not a person designated in 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 1114 and, therefore, was not covered by 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a), (b). The district court denied\\nBedford’s motion. Concluding that P.D. qualified as a person assisting a federal officer or\\nemployee, the court reasoned that P.D. “was a contract driver, performing the same functions as\\na Postal Service employee” and that his “work supported the Postal Service’s function.” DE 27,\\nOrder, Page ID 54–55.\\n\\n Following the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,\\nBedford pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial. The court then sentenced Bedford\\nto fifteen months of imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. Bedford timely\\nfiled his notice of appeal.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n In reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment, this court reviews the district court’s\\nlegal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error or abuse of discretion. United\\nStates v. Trent, 654 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 2011). Thus, where there are “no operative facts in\\ndispute,” this court’s review is de novo. Id. Because the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 1114, and\\nin turn, §§ 111(a), (b), does not involve any operative facts in dispute, this court’s review is de\\nnovo.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n On appeal, Bedford argues that the district court should have dismissed the indictment for\\nlack of jurisdiction. He contends that P.D. was not a person assisting a federal officer or\\nemployee in the performance of official duties under 18 U.S.C. § 1114 and that the court\\ntherefore did not have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § § 111(a), (b). We agree with the district\\ncourt that P.D. fell into the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 1114. By transporting U.S. mail on behalf of\\nthe USPS, pursuant to his employer’s contract with the USPS, P.D. was a person assisting a\\nfederal officer or employee in the performance of official duties. We therefore affirm Bedford’s\\nconviction under 18 U.S.C. § § 111(a), (b).\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 5\\n\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Whether a contract mail carrier who carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS is a person\\nassisting a federal officer or employee under 18 U.S.C. § 1114 is an issue of first impression for\\nthis court. In our analysis, “[w]e start, as always, with the language of the statute.” Williams v.\\nTaylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431 (2000). When looking at the language of the statute, this court\\n“examines the plain meaning of its words.” In re Corrin, 849 F.3d 653, 657 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n“It is well established that ‘when the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts—\\nat least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its\\nterms.’” Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004) (quoting Hartford Underwriters\\nIns. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000)). In doing so, “no clause, sentence,\\nor word of a statute should be read as superfluous, void, or insignificant.” In re City of Detroit,\\n841 F.3d 684, 696–97 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The plain\\nmeaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal\\napplication of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its\\ndrafters.” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989) (quoting Griffin v.\\nOceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571 (1982) (brackets in original)). Thus, in cases\\nwhere “the language is ambiguous or leads to an absurd result, the court may look at the\\nlegislative history of the statute to help determine the meaning of the language.” In re Corrin,\\n849 F.3d at 657 (citing Chrysler Corp. v. Comm’n, 436 F.3d 644, 654 (6th Cir. 2006)). But\\nwhere the statutory language is unambiguous, our inquiry both begins and ends with the text\\nitself. See Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. at 240–41 (noting that “as long as the statutory\\nscheme is coherent and consistent, there generally is no need for a court to inquire beyond the\\nplain language of the statute”).\\n\\n Here, the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1114 is unambiguous, coherent, and consistent with the\\nbroader statutory scheme. Thus, we do not inquire beyond the plain meaning of the statute. See\\nid. As § 1114 applies to “any person assisting . . . an officer or employee [of the United States]\\nin the performance of such duties,”2 the narrow question is what it means to assist, and the\\n\\n\\n 2In 1996, Congress amended the statute. Prior to amendment, it contained a lengthy list of specific federal\\nofficers and employees, and the only non-governmental employees covered were those “employed to assist\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 6\\n\\n\\nanswer lies within the word’s plain and ordinary meaning, as defined in the dictionary and by our\\nsister circuits and the Supreme Court.\\n\\n In discerning the plain meaning of “assist,” this court may look to a dictionary definition\\nfor guidance. Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1060 (6th Cir. 2014).\\nMerriam-Webster Dictionary defines “assist” as “to give usually supplementary support or aid\\nto” or “to give support or aid.” Assist, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, http://merriam-\\nwebster/com/dictionary/assist (last visited Oct. 31, 2018). While the Sixth Circuit has not, some\\nof our sister circuits have analyzed what “assist” means within the context of § 1114. For\\nexample, the Fifth Circuit found that “[t]he meaning of the verb ‘assist’ is thus clear and\\nuncontroverted: It means to provide supplemental help or support in carrying out some task of\\nmutual involvement.” United States v. Reed, 375 F.3d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 2004). The Supreme\\nCourt’s analysis of what it means to “act[] as an assistant to a federal officer” within the context\\nof the federal removal statute is also instructive. Watson v. Philip Morris Co., 551 U.S. 142, 151\\n(2007) (noting that the federal removal statute apples to “private persons who lawfully assist the\\nfederal officer in the performance of his official duty”) (internal citations omitted). Here, the\\nSupreme Court explained that a private person can invoke the federal removal statute when his\\nacts “involve an effort to assist, or to help carry out, the duties or tasks of the federal superior.”\\nId. at 152 (emphasis omitted).\\n\\n Thus, applying the plain and ordinary meaning of “assist,” as explained by Merriam-\\nWebster Dictionary and in relevant case law, P.D. was a person assisting an officer or employee\\nof the United States. As a threshold matter, the USPS is “an agency or branch” of the United\\nStates government and is therefore encompassed by 18 U.S.C. § 1114. See United States v.\\nHopper, 436 F. App’x 414, 424 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing 39 U.S.C. § 201). By carrying U.S. mail,\\nP.D. provided “supplemental help or support” to the USPS, an agency of the federal government,\\nin a task of “mutual involvement.” See Reed, 375 F.3d at 344. Moreover, P.D.’s transport of\\n\\n[a United States marshal] or deputy marshal.” 18 U.S.C. § 1114 (1995), amended by 18. U.S.C. § 1114(a) (Supp.\\n1996). While it is unnecessary to study the amendment in order to decide this case, see Lamie, 540 U.S. at 534, 539,\\nthe change suggests Congress’s intent to broaden the statute’s reach to apply not only to specific officers, and one\\nspecific assistant, but instead to all federal officers and those who provide assistance. See United States v. Luedtke,\\nNo. CRIM 13-40(1) DWF, 2013 WL 3974430, at *11 (D. Minn. July 30, 2013) (“Thus, if anything, the amendment\\nexpanded, not contracted, the statute’s reach.”), aff’d, 771 F.3d 453 (8th Cir. 2014).\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 7\\n\\n\\nUnited States mail was an effort to “help carry out[] the duties or tasks of the federal superior.”\\nSee Watson, 551 U.S. at 151. Had it not been for P.D. or another contract driver, the USPS\\nwould have had to deliver the mail itself. Thus, when P.D. transported mail, he both furthered\\nthe interest of the USPS to deliver mail and also tangibly contributed to that interest by\\nphysically transporting it. Hence, under a plain and ordinary interpretation of “assist,” when\\nP.D. transported United States mail, a job that the USPS would otherwise do itself, he assisted an\\nofficer or employee of the USPS in official duties.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Bedford argues that P.D. did not assist the USPS under § 1114 because “there was no\\ndirect federal participation on the date in question,” P.D. was not “acting on loan to a federal\\nagency,” and P.D. was not acting upon “orders or instruction from anyone at the USPS.” CA6 R.\\n12, Bedford Br., at 30. But surely P.D. did not have free reign to transport United States mail to\\nany destination, on any timeline, that he desired. And more importantly, while no court has\\naddressed this issue in the context of a contract postal employee carrying United States mail, it is\\nwell established that private employees who, subject to government contracts, perform work that\\nfederal employees would otherwise do, and, in doing so, further the interests of the federal\\ngovernment, fall within the ambit of § 1114, and thus § 111.\\n\\n For example, in United States v. Matthews, the Second Circuit concluded that a\\nhandyman employed by a private company under contract to repair a wall in a house that had\\nbeen seized by the federal government was “employed to assist” the federal officers under\\n§ 1114. 106 F.3d 1092, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the\\nstatute “embraces . . . persons working for public or private entities that furnish services to the\\n[federal government] under contract.” Id. Similarly, the Tenth Circuit found that a county\\ndetention center officer was assisting an officer or employee of the United States when the\\ncounty detention center had contracted with the United States Marshals to house federal\\nprisoners. United States v. Ama, 97 F. App’x 900, 902 (10th Cir. 2004). The court reasoned that\\neven though the officer did not have a federal source of wages, was not cross-deputized, and was\\nnot supervised by a federal employee, he “was acting pursuant to a contract to provide assistance\\nto the United States Marshal, whose official duties include housing prisoners awaiting federal\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 8\\n\\n\\ntrial. Thus, he was performing the same duties and functions that a federal officer would\\nperform.” Id.\\n\\n The Fourth Circuit reached the same result in a case involving a private prison guard,\\nconcluding that contract employees who serve “precisely the same federal interest” that the\\nfederal employee would otherwise serve fall within § 1114, as the statutory scheme “applies ‘to\\nprotect both federal officers and federal functions.’” United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 146\\n(4th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 671 (1975) (emphasis omitted)).\\nThe court explained “that [the private employee] was not directly controlled by a federal agent or\\nthat a federal agent was not present does not diminish our reasoning nor the result; neither the\\nstatutes nor the decisional law require that [the employee] be directly controlled by a federal\\nagent before the protection of § § 111, 1114 applies.” Id. Hence, when a contract employee\\nserves a federal function by carrying out a federal interest, even when he is not directly\\nsupervised, he assists an officer or employee of the United States within the meaning of § 1114.\\n\\n On the other hand, when a non-federal employee inadvertently serves a federal interest,\\nbut does not do so pursuant to contract or direction by the federal government, he does not assist\\na federal employee under § 1114. See Reed, 375 F.3d at 345 (holding that Dallas police officer\\ndid not assist FBI where there was no contract for services and police officer acted before FBI\\narrived at the scene); United States v. Sapp, 272 F. Supp. 2d 897, 908–10 (N.D. Cal. 2003)\\n(holding that state officer who apprehended suspect did not assist federal officer where there was\\nno contract and federal officers were unaware of state involvement during three week\\ninvestigation).\\n\\n This interpretation is also consistent with how courts have applied 18 U.S.C. § 111. In\\nanalyzing § 111, the Supreme Court noted that “we think it plain that Congress intended to\\nprotect both federal officers and federal functions, and that, indeed, the furtherance of the one\\npolicy advances the other.” Feola, 420 U.S. at 679. While Feola came before the current\\nversion of § 1114 was incorporated into § 111, recent opinions have echoed the Supreme Court’s\\nearlier sentiment and applied a federal-functions approach to § 111. See United States v. Kimes,\\n246 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir. 2001) (applying federal functions approach to analysis of § 111);\\nUnited States v. Luedtke, 771 F.3d 453, 455 (8th Cir. 2014) (applying federal functions approach\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 9\\n\\n\\nand concluding that county jail officers performing federal function under contract qualified as\\npersons assisting federal officers under § 111); United States v. Haines, No. 2:16-cr-00137, 2017\\nWL 925007, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2017) (applying federal-function approach and concluding\\nthat detention center employee performing federal function under contract qualified as person\\nassisting federal officers under § 111).\\n\\n Here, like the employee in Matthews, Ama, and Murphy, and unlike the one in Reed and\\nSapp, P.D. acted pursuant to contract with the federal government and furnished services that\\nfurthered the interest of the federal agency with which his employer contracted. While Bedford\\nmaintains that P.D.’s trucking company just “happened to have as one of its contracts, a contract\\nto haul mail for the Postal Service,” there is nothing inadvertent or happenstance about the\\ncontract. CA6 R. 12, Bedford Br., at 11. There is no evidence that indicates that the contract\\nwas an accident or that the USPS did not know about it. Thus, unlike the non-federal officers in\\nReed and Sapp, P.D. did not inadvertently serve a federal interest. His employer was contracted\\nto carry United States mail on behalf of the USPS. Thus, despite not receiving his paycheck\\nfrom the federal government or driving with a federal supervisor in the passenger seat next to\\nhim, P.D., pursuant to formal contract, performed the same duties and functions that a USPS\\nemployee would perform and furthered the interests of the federal government. See Ama, 97 F.\\nApp’x at 902. The USPS, in effect, acted through P.D. We therefore hold that when an\\nemployee of a private company carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS, pursuant to formal\\ncontract, he assists an officer or employee of the United States in the performance of official\\nduties.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n In an off-hand remark on the last page of his appeal, Bedford posits that P.D. does not fall\\nwithin the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 111 because of “the underlying fact . . . that [P.D.] was not\\ntargeted because he was a federal employee.” CA6 R. 12, Bedford Br., at 30 (emphasis added).\\nIn effect, Bedford contends that because he shot at the truck without knowing that P.D. was\\ncarrying United States mail, the statute should not apply. But the Supreme Court has squarely\\nforeclosed this argument. In analyzing § 111, it stated that “[a]ll the statute requires is an intent\\nto assault, not an intent to assault a federal officer.” Feola, 420 U.S. at 684. Whether Bedford\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 10\\n\\n\\ntargeted P.D. because he was a federal officer—or assisting one—is not relevant. All that\\nmatters was that P.D. was, in fact, targeted.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s denial of Bedford’s motion to\\ndismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4360961/\", \"author_raw\": \"JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"DAUGHTREY"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GIBBONS"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"GRIFFIN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583708/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald BEDFORD, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-23\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0009p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\n │\n > No. 18-5627\n v. │\n │\n │\n RONALD BEDFORD, │\n Defendant-Appellant. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.\n No. 2:17-cr-20165-1—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.\n\n Argued: December 5, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: January 23, 2019\n\n Before: DAUGHTREY, GIBBONS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: David M. Bell, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Memphis, Tennessee, for\nAppellant. Christopher E. Cotten, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Memphis,\nTennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David M. Bell, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,\nMemphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Christopher E. Cotten, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\nOFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In an act of road rage, Ronald Bedford fired\ntwo shots at a truck driver while they both headed westbound on Interstate 40 (“I-40”) in\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 2\n\n\nTennessee. The truck driver, P.D., was employed by P&R Trucking, a private trucking company\nthat had a contract with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) to transport mail. At the time\nof the shooting, P.D. was carrying U.S. mail. Bedford was charged with forcibly assaulting,\nresisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a person assisting officers and\nemployees of the United States, while that person was engaged in the performance of official\nduties, and in doing so, using a dangerous weapon, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), (b).\nBedford then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the\ntruck driver was not an officer or employee of the United States within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.\n§ 1114, which is incorporated in 18 U.S.C. § 111. The district court denied the motion, finding\nthat the truck driver was a person assisting a federal officer or employee, and the truck driver\ntherefore fell within the statute’s reach. Bedford now appeals that denial. In this case of first\nimpression for our court, we agree with the district court that when a private mail carrier,\npursuant to formal contract, carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS, he assists an officer or\nemployee of the United States in the performance of official duties. We therefore affirm\nBedford’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), (b).\n\n I.\n\n P&R Trucking, based in Sparta, Tennessee, is a private trucking company that contracts\nwith the USPS to transport mail. P&R “began as strictly a contractor for the USPS” and now\nprovides contract as well as freight services. P&R TRUCKING, INC., http://prtrucking.us/sparta-\nfreight-services (last visited Nov. 14, 2018). P&R is just one of many private trucking\ncompanies with whom the USPS contracts to provide mail delivery services.\n\n On August 7, 2016, P.D., a truck driver for P&R Trucking, was transporting U.S. mail for\nthe USPS from Cookeville to the USPS Network Distribution Center in Memphis, Tennessee,\nwhen he encountered a car driven by defendant Robert Bedford on I-40 West. As they\nmaneuvered around each other and a construction zone on the I-40 West and I-240 West\ninterchange, Bedford pulled in front of P.D., blocked the left lane and left shoulder, and exited\nhis vehicle. P.D. stated that it appeared that Bedford intended to cause an accident. P.D. then\nreversed his truck, went around Bedford’s vehicle, and continued down 1-40 West. As P.D.\napproached the Warford Street exit, however, Bedford caught up and pulled up next to the left\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 3\n\n\nfender of the truck. Bedford then fired two shots into the truck before exiting I-40 onto Warford\nStreet. Subsequent investigation of the truck revealed that bullets struck two of the rear driver’s\nside tires and the frame of the trailer near the rear axle.\n\n Uninjured but “shaken,” P.D. called 911, provided Bedford’s license plate number, and\nthen continued on to the USPS Network Distribution Center in Memphis. CA6 R. 39,\nPresentence Report, Page ID 106. In response to P.D.’s call, officers with the Memphis Police\nDepartment located Bedford on Warford Street, just past the off-ramp from I-40 West. The\nofficers detained him and searched his car, finding a loaded Ruger 9mm handgun in his glove\nbox. Officers then placed Bedford under arrest and impounded his vehicle.\n\n In June 2017, a federal grand returned a one-count indictment charging Bedford. The\nindictment alleged:\n\n On or about August 7, 2016 in the Western District of Tennessee, the defendant,\n Ronald Bedford, did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and\n interfere with P.D., a person assisting officers and employees of the United States\n Postal Service, while P.D. was engaged in the performance of his official duties,\n and in doing so, utilized a dangerous weapon, that is, a handgun, in violation of\n Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1) and (b).1\n\nDE 1, Indictment, Page ID 1. Section 111(a) applies to “whoever forcibly assaults, resists,\nopposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this\ntitle while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)\n(emphasis added). Those designated in § 1114 include:\n\n any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the\n United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services)\n while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of\n official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the\n performance of such duties or on account of that assistance . . . .\n\n§ 1114 (emphasis added).\n\n\n\n\n 118 U.S.C. § 111(b) enhances the penalty for acts committed with a deadly or dangerous weapon.\n18 U.S.C. § 111(b).\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 4\n\n\n In October 2017, Bedford filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction\nunder Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b). He argued that P.D. was not a person designated in 18 U.S.C.\n§ 1114 and, therefore, was not covered by 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a), (b). The district court denied\nBedford’s motion. Concluding that P.D. qualified as a person assisting a federal officer or\nemployee, the court reasoned that P.D. “was a contract driver, performing the same functions as\na Postal Service employee” and that his “work supported the Postal Service’s function.” DE 27,\nOrder, Page ID 54–55.\n\n Following the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,\nBedford pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial. The court then sentenced Bedford\nto fifteen months of imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. Bedford timely\nfiled his notice of appeal.\n\n II.\n\n In reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment, this court reviews the district court’s\nlegal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error or abuse of discretion. United\nStates v. Trent, 654 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 2011). Thus, where there are “no operative facts in\ndispute,” this court’s review is de novo. Id. Because the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 1114, and\nin turn, §§ 111(a), (b), does not involve any operative facts in dispute, this court’s review is de\nnovo.\n\n III.\n\n On appeal, Bedford argues that the district court should have dismissed the indictment for\nlack of jurisdiction. He contends that P.D. was not a person assisting a federal officer or\nemployee in the performance of official duties under 18 U.S.C. § 1114 and that the court\ntherefore did not have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § § 111(a), (b). We agree with the district\ncourt that P.D. fell into the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 1114. By transporting U.S. mail on behalf of\nthe USPS, pursuant to his employer’s contract with the USPS, P.D. was a person assisting a\nfederal officer or employee in the performance of official duties. We therefore affirm Bedford’s\nconviction under 18 U.S.C. § § 111(a), (b).\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 5\n\n\n A.\n\n Whether a contract mail carrier who carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS is a person\nassisting a federal officer or employee under 18 U.S.C. § 1114 is an issue of first impression for\nthis court. In our analysis, “[w]e start, as always, with the language of the statute.” Williams v.\nTaylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431 (2000). When looking at the language of the statute, this court\n“examines the plain meaning of its words.” In re Corrin, 849 F.3d 653, 657 (6th Cir. 2017).\n“It is well established that ‘when the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts—\nat least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its\nterms.’” Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004) (quoting Hartford Underwriters\nIns. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000)). In doing so, “no clause, sentence,\nor word of a statute should be read as superfluous, void, or insignificant.” In re City of Detroit,\n841 F.3d 684, 696–97 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The plain\nmeaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal\napplication of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its\ndrafters.” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989) (quoting Griffin v.\nOceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571 (1982) (brackets in original)). Thus, in cases\nwhere “the language is ambiguous or leads to an absurd result, the court may look at the\nlegislative history of the statute to help determine the meaning of the language.” In re Corrin,\n849 F.3d at 657 (citing Chrysler Corp. v. Comm’n, 436 F.3d 644, 654 (6th Cir. 2006)). But\nwhere the statutory language is unambiguous, our inquiry both begins and ends with the text\nitself. See Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. at 240–41 (noting that “as long as the statutory\nscheme is coherent and consistent, there generally is no need for a court to inquire beyond the\nplain language of the statute”).\n\n Here, the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1114 is unambiguous, coherent, and consistent with the\nbroader statutory scheme. Thus, we do not inquire beyond the plain meaning of the statute. See\nid. As § 1114 applies to “any person assisting . . . an officer or employee [of the United States]\nin the performance of such duties,”2 the narrow question is what it means to assist, and the\n\n\n 2In 1996, Congress amended the statute. Prior to amendment, it contained a lengthy list of specific federal\nofficers and employees, and the only non-governmental employees covered were those “employed to assist\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 6\n\n\nanswer lies within the word’s plain and ordinary meaning, as defined in the dictionary and by our\nsister circuits and the Supreme Court.\n\n In discerning the plain meaning of “assist,” this court may look to a dictionary definition\nfor guidance. Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1060 (6th Cir. 2014).\nMerriam-Webster Dictionary defines “assist” as “to give usually supplementary support or aid\nto” or “to give support or aid.” Assist, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, http://merriam-\nwebster/com/dictionary/assist (last visited Oct. 31, 2018). While the Sixth Circuit has not, some\nof our sister circuits have analyzed what “assist” means within the context of § 1114. For\nexample, the Fifth Circuit found that “[t]he meaning of the verb ‘assist’ is thus clear and\nuncontroverted: It means to provide supplemental help or support in carrying out some task of\nmutual involvement.” United States v. Reed, 375 F.3d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 2004). The Supreme\nCourt’s analysis of what it means to “act[] as an assistant to a federal officer” within the context\nof the federal removal statute is also instructive. Watson v. Philip Morris Co., 551 U.S. 142, 151\n(2007) (noting that the federal removal statute apples to “private persons who lawfully assist the\nfederal officer in the performance of his official duty”) (internal citations omitted). Here, the\nSupreme Court explained that a private person can invoke the federal removal statute when his\nacts “involve an effort to assist, or to help carry out, the duties or tasks of the federal superior.”\nId. at 152 (emphasis omitted).\n\n Thus, applying the plain and ordinary meaning of “assist,” as explained by Merriam-\nWebster Dictionary and in relevant case law, P.D. was a person assisting an officer or employee\nof the United States. As a threshold matter, the USPS is “an agency or branch” of the United\nStates government and is therefore encompassed by 18 U.S.C. § 1114. See United States v.\nHopper, 436 F. App’x 414, 424 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing 39 U.S.C. § 201). By carrying U.S. mail,\nP.D. provided “supplemental help or support” to the USPS, an agency of the federal government,\nin a task of “mutual involvement.” See Reed, 375 F.3d at 344. Moreover, P.D.’s transport of\n\n[a United States marshal] or deputy marshal.” 18 U.S.C. § 1114 (1995), amended by 18. U.S.C. § 1114(a) (Supp.\n1996). While it is unnecessary to study the amendment in order to decide this case, see Lamie, 540 U.S. at 534, 539,\nthe change suggests Congress’s intent to broaden the statute’s reach to apply not only to specific officers, and one\nspecific assistant, but instead to all federal officers and those who provide assistance. See United States v. Luedtke,\nNo. CRIM 13-40(1) DWF, 2013 WL 3974430, at *11 (D. Minn. July 30, 2013) (“Thus, if anything, the amendment\nexpanded, not contracted, the statute’s reach.”), aff’d, 771 F.3d 453 (8th Cir. 2014).\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 7\n\n\nUnited States mail was an effort to “help carry out[] the duties or tasks of the federal superior.”\nSee Watson, 551 U.S. at 151. Had it not been for P.D. or another contract driver, the USPS\nwould have had to deliver the mail itself. Thus, when P.D. transported mail, he both furthered\nthe interest of the USPS to deliver mail and also tangibly contributed to that interest by\nphysically transporting it. Hence, under a plain and ordinary interpretation of “assist,” when\nP.D. transported United States mail, a job that the USPS would otherwise do itself, he assisted an\nofficer or employee of the USPS in official duties.\n\n B.\n\n Bedford argues that P.D. did not assist the USPS under § 1114 because “there was no\ndirect federal participation on the date in question,” P.D. was not “acting on loan to a federal\nagency,” and P.D. was not acting upon “orders or instruction from anyone at the USPS.” CA6 R.\n12, Bedford Br., at 30. But surely P.D. did not have free reign to transport United States mail to\nany destination, on any timeline, that he desired. And more importantly, while no court has\naddressed this issue in the context of a contract postal employee carrying United States mail, it is\nwell established that private employees who, subject to government contracts, perform work that\nfederal employees would otherwise do, and, in doing so, further the interests of the federal\ngovernment, fall within the ambit of § 1114, and thus § 111.\n\n For example, in United States v. Matthews, the Second Circuit concluded that a\nhandyman employed by a private company under contract to repair a wall in a house that had\nbeen seized by the federal government was “employed to assist” the federal officers under\n§ 1114. 106 F.3d 1092, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the\nstatute “embraces . . . persons working for public or private entities that furnish services to the\n[federal government] under contract.” Id. Similarly, the Tenth Circuit found that a county\ndetention center officer was assisting an officer or employee of the United States when the\ncounty detention center had contracted with the United States Marshals to house federal\nprisoners. United States v. Ama, 97 F. App’x 900, 902 (10th Cir. 2004). The court reasoned that\neven though the officer did not have a federal source of wages, was not cross-deputized, and was\nnot supervised by a federal employee, he “was acting pursuant to a contract to provide assistance\nto the United States Marshal, whose official duties include housing prisoners awaiting federal\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 8\n\n\ntrial. Thus, he was performing the same duties and functions that a federal officer would\nperform.” Id.\n\n The Fourth Circuit reached the same result in a case involving a private prison guard,\nconcluding that contract employees who serve “precisely the same federal interest” that the\nfederal employee would otherwise serve fall within § 1114, as the statutory scheme “applies ‘to\nprotect both federal officers and federal functions.’” United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 146\n(4th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 671 (1975) (emphasis omitted)).\nThe court explained “that [the private employee] was not directly controlled by a federal agent or\nthat a federal agent was not present does not diminish our reasoning nor the result; neither the\nstatutes nor the decisional law require that [the employee] be directly controlled by a federal\nagent before the protection of § § 111, 1114 applies.” Id. Hence, when a contract employee\nserves a federal function by carrying out a federal interest, even when he is not directly\nsupervised, he assists an officer or employee of the United States within the meaning of § 1114.\n\n On the other hand, when a non-federal employee inadvertently serves a federal interest,\nbut does not do so pursuant to contract or direction by the federal government, he does not assist\na federal employee under § 1114. See Reed, 375 F.3d at 345 (holding that Dallas police officer\ndid not assist FBI where there was no contract for services and police officer acted before FBI\narrived at the scene); United States v. Sapp, 272 F. Supp. 2d 897, 908–10 (N.D. Cal. 2003)\n(holding that state officer who apprehended suspect did not assist federal officer where there was\nno contract and federal officers were unaware of state involvement during three week\ninvestigation).\n\n This interpretation is also consistent with how courts have applied 18 U.S.C. § 111. In\nanalyzing § 111, the Supreme Court noted that “we think it plain that Congress intended to\nprotect both federal officers and federal functions, and that, indeed, the furtherance of the one\npolicy advances the other.” Feola, 420 U.S. at 679. While Feola came before the current\nversion of § 1114 was incorporated into § 111, recent opinions have echoed the Supreme Court’s\nearlier sentiment and applied a federal-functions approach to § 111. See United States v. Kimes,\n246 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir. 2001) (applying federal functions approach to analysis of § 111);\nUnited States v. Luedtke, 771 F.3d 453, 455 (8th Cir. 2014) (applying federal functions approach\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 9\n\n\nand concluding that county jail officers performing federal function under contract qualified as\npersons assisting federal officers under § 111); United States v. Haines, No. 2:16-cr-00137, 2017\nWL 925007, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2017) (applying federal-function approach and concluding\nthat detention center employee performing federal function under contract qualified as person\nassisting federal officers under § 111).\n\n Here, like the employee in Matthews, Ama, and Murphy, and unlike the one in Reed and\nSapp, P.D. acted pursuant to contract with the federal government and furnished services that\nfurthered the interest of the federal agency with which his employer contracted. While Bedford\nmaintains that P.D.’s trucking company just “happened to have as one of its contracts, a contract\nto haul mail for the Postal Service,” there is nothing inadvertent or happenstance about the\ncontract. CA6 R. 12, Bedford Br., at 11. There is no evidence that indicates that the contract\nwas an accident or that the USPS did not know about it. Thus, unlike the non-federal officers in\nReed and Sapp, P.D. did not inadvertently serve a federal interest. His employer was contracted\nto carry United States mail on behalf of the USPS. Thus, despite not receiving his paycheck\nfrom the federal government or driving with a federal supervisor in the passenger seat next to\nhim, P.D., pursuant to formal contract, performed the same duties and functions that a USPS\nemployee would perform and furthered the interests of the federal government. See Ama, 97 F.\nApp’x at 902. The USPS, in effect, acted through P.D. We therefore hold that when an\nemployee of a private company carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS, pursuant to formal\ncontract, he assists an officer or employee of the United States in the performance of official\nduties.\n\n C.\n\n In an off-hand remark on the last page of his appeal, Bedford posits that P.D. does not fall\nwithin the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 111 because of “the underlying fact . . . that [P.D.] was not\ntargeted because he was a federal employee.” CA6 R. 12, Bedford Br., at 30 (emphasis added).\nIn effect, Bedford contends that because he shot at the truck without knowing that P.D. was\ncarrying United States mail, the statute should not apply. But the Supreme Court has squarely\nforeclosed this argument. In analyzing § 111, it stated that “[a]ll the statute requires is an intent\nto assault, not an intent to assault a federal officer.” Feola, 420 U.S. at 684. Whether Bedford\n\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 10\n\n\ntargeted P.D. because he was a federal officer—or assisting one—is not relevant. All that\nmatters was that P.D. was, in fact, targeted.\n\n IV.\n\n For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s denial of Bedford’s motion to\ndismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald BEDFORD, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-23\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0009p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellee, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-5627\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n RONALD BEDFORD, │\\n Defendant-Appellant. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.\\n No. 2:17-cr-20165-1—Samuel H. Mays, Jr., District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: December 5, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 23, 2019\\n\\n Before: DAUGHTREY, GIBBONS and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: David M. Bell, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Memphis, Tennessee, for\\nAppellant. Christopher E. Cotten, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Memphis,\\nTennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: David M. Bell, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,\\nMemphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Christopher E. Cotten, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S\\nOFFICE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In an act of road rage, Ronald Bedford fired\\ntwo shots at a truck driver while they both headed westbound on Interstate 40 (“I-40”) in\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 2\\n\\n\\nTennessee. The truck driver, P.D., was employed by P&R Trucking, a private trucking company\\nthat had a contract with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) to transport mail. At the time\\nof the shooting, P.D. was carrying U.S. mail. Bedford was charged with forcibly assaulting,\\nresisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a person assisting officers and\\nemployees of the United States, while that person was engaged in the performance of official\\nduties, and in doing so, using a dangerous weapon, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), (b).\\nBedford then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the\\ntruck driver was not an officer or employee of the United States within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 1114, which is incorporated in 18 U.S.C. § 111. The district court denied the motion, finding\\nthat the truck driver was a person assisting a federal officer or employee, and the truck driver\\ntherefore fell within the statute’s reach. Bedford now appeals that denial. In this case of first\\nimpression for our court, we agree with the district court that when a private mail carrier,\\npursuant to formal contract, carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS, he assists an officer or\\nemployee of the United States in the performance of official duties. We therefore affirm\\nBedford’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), (b).\\n\\n I.\\n\\n P&R Trucking, based in Sparta, Tennessee, is a private trucking company that contracts\\nwith the USPS to transport mail. P&R “began as strictly a contractor for the USPS” and now\\nprovides contract as well as freight services. P&R TRUCKING, INC., http://prtrucking.us/sparta-\\nfreight-services (last visited Nov. 14, 2018). P&R is just one of many private trucking\\ncompanies with whom the USPS contracts to provide mail delivery services.\\n\\n On August 7, 2016, P.D., a truck driver for P&R Trucking, was transporting U.S. mail for\\nthe USPS from Cookeville to the USPS Network Distribution Center in Memphis, Tennessee,\\nwhen he encountered a car driven by defendant Robert Bedford on I-40 West. As they\\nmaneuvered around each other and a construction zone on the I-40 West and I-240 West\\ninterchange, Bedford pulled in front of P.D., blocked the left lane and left shoulder, and exited\\nhis vehicle. P.D. stated that it appeared that Bedford intended to cause an accident. P.D. then\\nreversed his truck, went around Bedford’s vehicle, and continued down 1-40 West. As P.D.\\napproached the Warford Street exit, however, Bedford caught up and pulled up next to the left\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 3\\n\\n\\nfender of the truck. Bedford then fired two shots into the truck before exiting I-40 onto Warford\\nStreet. Subsequent investigation of the truck revealed that bullets struck two of the rear driver’s\\nside tires and the frame of the trailer near the rear axle.\\n\\n Uninjured but “shaken,” P.D. called 911, provided Bedford’s license plate number, and\\nthen continued on to the USPS Network Distribution Center in Memphis. CA6 R. 39,\\nPresentence Report, Page ID 106. In response to P.D.’s call, officers with the Memphis Police\\nDepartment located Bedford on Warford Street, just past the off-ramp from I-40 West. The\\nofficers detained him and searched his car, finding a loaded Ruger 9mm handgun in his glove\\nbox. Officers then placed Bedford under arrest and impounded his vehicle.\\n\\n In June 2017, a federal grand returned a one-count indictment charging Bedford. The\\nindictment alleged:\\n\\n On or about August 7, 2016 in the Western District of Tennessee, the defendant,\\n Ronald Bedford, did forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, and\\n interfere with P.D., a person assisting officers and employees of the United States\\n Postal Service, while P.D. was engaged in the performance of his official duties,\\n and in doing so, utilized a dangerous weapon, that is, a handgun, in violation of\\n Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a)(1) and (b).1\\n\\nDE 1, Indictment, Page ID 1. Section 111(a) applies to “whoever forcibly assaults, resists,\\nopposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this\\ntitle while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1)\\n(emphasis added). Those designated in § 1114 include:\\n\\n any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the\\n United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services)\\n while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of\\n official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the\\n performance of such duties or on account of that assistance . . . .\\n\\n§ 1114 (emphasis added).\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 118 U.S.C. § 111(b) enhances the penalty for acts committed with a deadly or dangerous weapon.\\n18 U.S.C. § 111(b).\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 4\\n\\n\\n In October 2017, Bedford filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction\\nunder Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b). He argued that P.D. was not a person designated in 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 1114 and, therefore, was not covered by 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a), (b). The district court denied\\nBedford’s motion. Concluding that P.D. qualified as a person assisting a federal officer or\\nemployee, the court reasoned that P.D. “was a contract driver, performing the same functions as\\na Postal Service employee” and that his “work supported the Postal Service’s function.” DE 27,\\nOrder, Page ID 54–55.\\n\\n Following the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,\\nBedford pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the denial. The court then sentenced Bedford\\nto fifteen months of imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release. Bedford timely\\nfiled his notice of appeal.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n In reviewing a motion to dismiss an indictment, this court reviews the district court’s\\nlegal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error or abuse of discretion. United\\nStates v. Trent, 654 F.3d 574, 578 (6th Cir. 2011). Thus, where there are “no operative facts in\\ndispute,” this court’s review is de novo. Id. Because the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 1114, and\\nin turn, §§ 111(a), (b), does not involve any operative facts in dispute, this court’s review is de\\nnovo.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n On appeal, Bedford argues that the district court should have dismissed the indictment for\\nlack of jurisdiction. He contends that P.D. was not a person assisting a federal officer or\\nemployee in the performance of official duties under 18 U.S.C. § 1114 and that the court\\ntherefore did not have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § § 111(a), (b). We agree with the district\\ncourt that P.D. fell into the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 1114. By transporting U.S. mail on behalf of\\nthe USPS, pursuant to his employer’s contract with the USPS, P.D. was a person assisting a\\nfederal officer or employee in the performance of official duties. We therefore affirm Bedford’s\\nconviction under 18 U.S.C. § § 111(a), (b).\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 5\\n\\n\\n A.\\n\\n Whether a contract mail carrier who carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS is a person\\nassisting a federal officer or employee under 18 U.S.C. § 1114 is an issue of first impression for\\nthis court. In our analysis, “[w]e start, as always, with the language of the statute.” Williams v.\\nTaylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431 (2000). When looking at the language of the statute, this court\\n“examines the plain meaning of its words.” In re Corrin, 849 F.3d 653, 657 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n“It is well established that ‘when the statute’s language is plain, the sole function of the courts—\\nat least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its\\nterms.’” Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526, 534 (2004) (quoting Hartford Underwriters\\nIns. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000)). In doing so, “no clause, sentence,\\nor word of a statute should be read as superfluous, void, or insignificant.” In re City of Detroit,\\n841 F.3d 684, 696–97 (6th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The plain\\nmeaning of legislation should be conclusive, except in the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal\\napplication of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intentions of its\\ndrafters.” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989) (quoting Griffin v.\\nOceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571 (1982) (brackets in original)). Thus, in cases\\nwhere “the language is ambiguous or leads to an absurd result, the court may look at the\\nlegislative history of the statute to help determine the meaning of the language.” In re Corrin,\\n849 F.3d at 657 (citing Chrysler Corp. v. Comm’n, 436 F.3d 644, 654 (6th Cir. 2006)). But\\nwhere the statutory language is unambiguous, our inquiry both begins and ends with the text\\nitself. See Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. at 240–41 (noting that “as long as the statutory\\nscheme is coherent and consistent, there generally is no need for a court to inquire beyond the\\nplain language of the statute”).\\n\\n Here, the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1114 is unambiguous, coherent, and consistent with the\\nbroader statutory scheme. Thus, we do not inquire beyond the plain meaning of the statute. See\\nid. As § 1114 applies to “any person assisting . . . an officer or employee [of the United States]\\nin the performance of such duties,”2 the narrow question is what it means to assist, and the\\n\\n\\n 2In 1996, Congress amended the statute. Prior to amendment, it contained a lengthy list of specific federal\\nofficers and employees, and the only non-governmental employees covered were those “employed to assist\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 6\\n\\n\\nanswer lies within the word’s plain and ordinary meaning, as defined in the dictionary and by our\\nsister circuits and the Supreme Court.\\n\\n In discerning the plain meaning of “assist,” this court may look to a dictionary definition\\nfor guidance. Vander Boegh v. EnergySolutions, Inc., 772 F.3d 1056, 1060 (6th Cir. 2014).\\nMerriam-Webster Dictionary defines “assist” as “to give usually supplementary support or aid\\nto” or “to give support or aid.” Assist, MERRIAM-WEBSTER.COM, http://merriam-\\nwebster/com/dictionary/assist (last visited Oct. 31, 2018). While the Sixth Circuit has not, some\\nof our sister circuits have analyzed what “assist” means within the context of § 1114. For\\nexample, the Fifth Circuit found that “[t]he meaning of the verb ‘assist’ is thus clear and\\nuncontroverted: It means to provide supplemental help or support in carrying out some task of\\nmutual involvement.” United States v. Reed, 375 F.3d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 2004). The Supreme\\nCourt’s analysis of what it means to “act[] as an assistant to a federal officer” within the context\\nof the federal removal statute is also instructive. Watson v. Philip Morris Co., 551 U.S. 142, 151\\n(2007) (noting that the federal removal statute apples to “private persons who lawfully assist the\\nfederal officer in the performance of his official duty”) (internal citations omitted). Here, the\\nSupreme Court explained that a private person can invoke the federal removal statute when his\\nacts “involve an effort to assist, or to help carry out, the duties or tasks of the federal superior.”\\nId. at 152 (emphasis omitted).\\n\\n Thus, applying the plain and ordinary meaning of “assist,” as explained by Merriam-\\nWebster Dictionary and in relevant case law, P.D. was a person assisting an officer or employee\\nof the United States. As a threshold matter, the USPS is “an agency or branch” of the United\\nStates government and is therefore encompassed by 18 U.S.C. § 1114. See United States v.\\nHopper, 436 F. App’x 414, 424 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing 39 U.S.C. § 201). By carrying U.S. mail,\\nP.D. provided “supplemental help or support” to the USPS, an agency of the federal government,\\nin a task of “mutual involvement.” See Reed, 375 F.3d at 344. Moreover, P.D.’s transport of\\n\\n[a United States marshal] or deputy marshal.” 18 U.S.C. § 1114 (1995), amended by 18. U.S.C. § 1114(a) (Supp.\\n1996). While it is unnecessary to study the amendment in order to decide this case, see Lamie, 540 U.S. at 534, 539,\\nthe change suggests Congress’s intent to broaden the statute’s reach to apply not only to specific officers, and one\\nspecific assistant, but instead to all federal officers and those who provide assistance. See United States v. Luedtke,\\nNo. CRIM 13-40(1) DWF, 2013 WL 3974430, at *11 (D. Minn. July 30, 2013) (“Thus, if anything, the amendment\\nexpanded, not contracted, the statute’s reach.”), aff’d, 771 F.3d 453 (8th Cir. 2014).\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 7\\n\\n\\nUnited States mail was an effort to “help carry out[] the duties or tasks of the federal superior.”\\nSee Watson, 551 U.S. at 151. Had it not been for P.D. or another contract driver, the USPS\\nwould have had to deliver the mail itself. Thus, when P.D. transported mail, he both furthered\\nthe interest of the USPS to deliver mail and also tangibly contributed to that interest by\\nphysically transporting it. Hence, under a plain and ordinary interpretation of “assist,” when\\nP.D. transported United States mail, a job that the USPS would otherwise do itself, he assisted an\\nofficer or employee of the USPS in official duties.\\n\\n B.\\n\\n Bedford argues that P.D. did not assist the USPS under § 1114 because “there was no\\ndirect federal participation on the date in question,” P.D. was not “acting on loan to a federal\\nagency,” and P.D. was not acting upon “orders or instruction from anyone at the USPS.” CA6 R.\\n12, Bedford Br., at 30. But surely P.D. did not have free reign to transport United States mail to\\nany destination, on any timeline, that he desired. And more importantly, while no court has\\naddressed this issue in the context of a contract postal employee carrying United States mail, it is\\nwell established that private employees who, subject to government contracts, perform work that\\nfederal employees would otherwise do, and, in doing so, further the interests of the federal\\ngovernment, fall within the ambit of § 1114, and thus § 111.\\n\\n For example, in United States v. Matthews, the Second Circuit concluded that a\\nhandyman employed by a private company under contract to repair a wall in a house that had\\nbeen seized by the federal government was “employed to assist” the federal officers under\\n§ 1114. 106 F.3d 1092, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the\\nstatute “embraces . . . persons working for public or private entities that furnish services to the\\n[federal government] under contract.” Id. Similarly, the Tenth Circuit found that a county\\ndetention center officer was assisting an officer or employee of the United States when the\\ncounty detention center had contracted with the United States Marshals to house federal\\nprisoners. United States v. Ama, 97 F. App’x 900, 902 (10th Cir. 2004). The court reasoned that\\neven though the officer did not have a federal source of wages, was not cross-deputized, and was\\nnot supervised by a federal employee, he “was acting pursuant to a contract to provide assistance\\nto the United States Marshal, whose official duties include housing prisoners awaiting federal\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 8\\n\\n\\ntrial. Thus, he was performing the same duties and functions that a federal officer would\\nperform.” Id.\\n\\n The Fourth Circuit reached the same result in a case involving a private prison guard,\\nconcluding that contract employees who serve “precisely the same federal interest” that the\\nfederal employee would otherwise serve fall within § 1114, as the statutory scheme “applies ‘to\\nprotect both federal officers and federal functions.’” United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 146\\n(4th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 671 (1975) (emphasis omitted)).\\nThe court explained “that [the private employee] was not directly controlled by a federal agent or\\nthat a federal agent was not present does not diminish our reasoning nor the result; neither the\\nstatutes nor the decisional law require that [the employee] be directly controlled by a federal\\nagent before the protection of § § 111, 1114 applies.” Id. Hence, when a contract employee\\nserves a federal function by carrying out a federal interest, even when he is not directly\\nsupervised, he assists an officer or employee of the United States within the meaning of § 1114.\\n\\n On the other hand, when a non-federal employee inadvertently serves a federal interest,\\nbut does not do so pursuant to contract or direction by the federal government, he does not assist\\na federal employee under § 1114. See Reed, 375 F.3d at 345 (holding that Dallas police officer\\ndid not assist FBI where there was no contract for services and police officer acted before FBI\\narrived at the scene); United States v. Sapp, 272 F. Supp. 2d 897, 908–10 (N.D. Cal. 2003)\\n(holding that state officer who apprehended suspect did not assist federal officer where there was\\nno contract and federal officers were unaware of state involvement during three week\\ninvestigation).\\n\\n This interpretation is also consistent with how courts have applied 18 U.S.C. § 111. In\\nanalyzing § 111, the Supreme Court noted that “we think it plain that Congress intended to\\nprotect both federal officers and federal functions, and that, indeed, the furtherance of the one\\npolicy advances the other.” Feola, 420 U.S. at 679. While Feola came before the current\\nversion of § 1114 was incorporated into § 111, recent opinions have echoed the Supreme Court’s\\nearlier sentiment and applied a federal-functions approach to § 111. See United States v. Kimes,\\n246 F.3d 800, 809 (6th Cir. 2001) (applying federal functions approach to analysis of § 111);\\nUnited States v. Luedtke, 771 F.3d 453, 455 (8th Cir. 2014) (applying federal functions approach\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 9\\n\\n\\nand concluding that county jail officers performing federal function under contract qualified as\\npersons assisting federal officers under § 111); United States v. Haines, No. 2:16-cr-00137, 2017\\nWL 925007, at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 24, 2017) (applying federal-function approach and concluding\\nthat detention center employee performing federal function under contract qualified as person\\nassisting federal officers under § 111).\\n\\n Here, like the employee in Matthews, Ama, and Murphy, and unlike the one in Reed and\\nSapp, P.D. acted pursuant to contract with the federal government and furnished services that\\nfurthered the interest of the federal agency with which his employer contracted. While Bedford\\nmaintains that P.D.’s trucking company just “happened to have as one of its contracts, a contract\\nto haul mail for the Postal Service,” there is nothing inadvertent or happenstance about the\\ncontract. CA6 R. 12, Bedford Br., at 11. There is no evidence that indicates that the contract\\nwas an accident or that the USPS did not know about it. Thus, unlike the non-federal officers in\\nReed and Sapp, P.D. did not inadvertently serve a federal interest. His employer was contracted\\nto carry United States mail on behalf of the USPS. Thus, despite not receiving his paycheck\\nfrom the federal government or driving with a federal supervisor in the passenger seat next to\\nhim, P.D., pursuant to formal contract, performed the same duties and functions that a USPS\\nemployee would perform and furthered the interests of the federal government. See Ama, 97 F.\\nApp’x at 902. The USPS, in effect, acted through P.D. We therefore hold that when an\\nemployee of a private company carries U.S. mail on behalf of the USPS, pursuant to formal\\ncontract, he assists an officer or employee of the United States in the performance of official\\nduties.\\n\\n C.\\n\\n In an off-hand remark on the last page of his appeal, Bedford posits that P.D. does not fall\\nwithin the ambit of 18 U.S.C. § 111 because of “the underlying fact . . . that [P.D.] was not\\ntargeted because he was a federal employee.” CA6 R. 12, Bedford Br., at 30 (emphasis added).\\nIn effect, Bedford contends that because he shot at the truck without knowing that P.D. was\\ncarrying United States mail, the statute should not apply. But the Supreme Court has squarely\\nforeclosed this argument. In analyzing § 111, it stated that “[a]ll the statute requires is an intent\\nto assault, not an intent to assault a federal officer.” Feola, 420 U.S. at 684. Whether Bedford\\n\\f No. 18-5627 United States v. Bedford Page 10\\n\\n\\ntargeted P.D. because he was a federal officer—or assisting one—is not relevant. All that\\nmatters was that P.D. was, in fact, targeted.\\n\\n IV.\\n\\n For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s denial of Bedford’s motion to\\ndismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":158,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4583709,"string":"4,583,709"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Julio Edgardo Molina HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Julio Molina Hernandez v. Matthew Whitaker"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-23"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3977"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Suhrheinrich, Gibbons, Kethledge\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0010p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n JULIO EDGARDO MOLINA HERNANDEZ, ┐\\n Petitioner, │\\n │\\n > No. 17-3977\\n V. │\\n │\\n │\\n MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, │\\n Respondent. │\\n ┘\\n\\n On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals;\\n No. A 205 657 285.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 23, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Russell Reid Abrutyn, ABRUTYN LAW PLLC, Berkley, Michigan, for Petitioner.\\nKathryn M. McKinney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,\\nfor Respondent.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Julio Molina Hernandez (“Molina”) appeals\\nthe Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) finding him removable on the basis that\\nhis felonious assault conviction under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 is a crime involving moral\\nturpitude (“CIMT”), (2) denying him asylum and withholding of removal, and (3) denying him\\nprotection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Molina also argues that the term\\n“CIMT” is unconstitutionally vague. Because Molina reasonably relied on this circuit’s decision\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 2\\n\\n\\nin Hanna v. Holder, 740 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2014), which held that the Michigan felonious assault\\nstatute is not categorically a CIMT, we reverse the BIA and find that Molina is not removable\\nbased on his prior conviction. Accordingly, Molina’s applications for asylum, withholding of\\nremoval, and protection under the CAT are moot and we will not issue a ruling on those\\narguments.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Molina was born in El Salvador and grew up in an area where the “18th Street” gang was\\nactive. The gang attempted to recruit Molina, and Molina claims that his uncle was murdered in\\n2008 because he refused to join the gang. Soon thereafter, Molina moved to San Vicente, which\\nwas located in MS-13 gang territory. Again, the MS-13 gang pressured Molina to join and beat\\nhim up several times when he refused. On September 25, 2012, when he was fifteen, Molina\\nillegally entered the United States. He was granted permanent resident status on July 9, 2014 as\\na Special Immigrant Juvenile. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27)(J), 1255(h). He was eventually\\ndeclared dependent by a juvenile court of the United States and placed in foster care.\\n\\n On March 16, 2016, Molina pled guilty to assault with intent to rob, unarmed, under\\nMCL § 750.88. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) initiated removal proceedings\\nunder 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), alleging that removal was appropriate because Molina had\\nbeen convicted of a CIMT within five years of his admission for which a sentence of at least one\\nyear could be imposed. However, Molina’s conviction was vacated because he did not receive\\nthe constitutionally required advice about the immigration consequences of his plea. He then\\npled guilty to felonious assault under MCL § 750.82. ICE continued to assert that he was\\nremovable, arguing that felonious assault also constituted a CIMT.\\n\\n The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Molina’s motion to terminate his removal\\nproceedings, and his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the\\nCAT, and ordered him removed. The IJ determined that Molina was ineligible for asylum,\\nwithholding of removal, and protection under the CAT because his conviction was for a\\nparticularly serious crime. Alternatively, the IJ denied Molina’s petition for asylum and\\nwithholding of removal on the merits, finding that there was no nexus between the harm that\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 3\\n\\n\\nMolina experienced and his fears of returning to El Salvador. The IJ also denied Molina’s\\napplication for CAT protection on the merits because Molina had not demonstrated that the\\ngovernment of El Salvador would torture him or acquiesce to such treatment.\\n\\n Molina timely appealed to the BIA, but the BIA denied his appeal and sustained the\\nCIMT removal charge. The BIA also agreed that Molina had been convicted of a particularly\\nserious crime and denied protection under CAT. Molina now appeals this BIA decision.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n In appeals from the BIA, this court reviews questions of law de novo. Khalili v. Holder,\\n557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed deferentially\\nfor substantial evidence—reversal is appropriate not where the court may have decided\\ndifferently, but only if the court is compelled to the opposite conclusion. Koulibaly v. Mukasey,\\n541 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2008). Additionally, we review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s\\ndecision to the extent that the IJ’s decision was adopted by the BIA as the final agency\\ndetermination. See Khalili, 557 F.3d at 435.\\n\\n Under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), “[a]ny alien who is convicted of a crime involving\\nmoral turpitude committed within five years . . . after the date of admission . . . is deportable.”\\nOur decision here involves interpreting a statute administered by a federal agency, so we review\\nthe agency’s interpretation under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,\\nInc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under that standard, if “Congress has directly spoken to the precise\\nquestion at issue” in the text of the statute, we give effect to Congress’s answer without regard to\\nany divergent answers offered by the agency or anyone else. Id. at 842–43. But if the statute is\\nambiguous with respect to the specific issue, “the question for the court is whether the agency’s\\nanswer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843. This court has\\npreviously held that the term “crime of moral turpitude,” as used in 8 U.S.C.\\n§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is ambiguous, and thus that the BIA’s interpretation of that term is\\ngenerally entitled to deference. See Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 2012).\\nYet the Board’s interpretation of that term in this case is not entitled to deference, because it\\ncomes in an unpublished, single-member decision that lacks precedential value. See Lockhart v.\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 4\\n\\n\\nNapolitano, 753 F.3d 251, 262 (6th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the court “review[s] de novo the\\nBIA’s interpretation of state criminal statutes in decisions regarding CIMTs.” Id. at 477 (citing\\nWala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007); Partyka v. Attorney Gen. of the United\\nStates, 417 F.3d 408, 411 (3d Cir. 2005)); see also Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700, 703 (6th\\nCir. 2010), rev’d on other grounds, Sellers v. Lynch, 630 F. App’x 464 (6th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e\\nreview de novo whether the elements of a federal crime fit the BIA’s definition of a CIMT.”\\n(citing Smalley v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 2003))).\\n\\n At issue in this case is the Michigan felonious assault statute:\\n\\n [A] person who assaults another person with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron\\n bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon without intending to commit\\n murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty of a felony\\n punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than\\n $2,000.00, or both.\\n\\nMCL § 750.82. Here, the BIA held that MCL § 750.82 constituted a CIMT because the\\n“dangerous weapon” element elevated the crime from simple assault to CIMT status. However,\\nthe BIA’s decision is at odds with this circuit’s precedent in Hanna v. Holder.1 In Hanna, the\\nalien, Hanna, had been convicted of Michigan felonious assault under MCL § 750.82 and had\\nconceded removability through his first attorney. 740 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2014). Later,\\nwhen represented by new counsel, he argued that his MCL § 750.82 conviction did not constitute\\na CIMT. Id. at 384–85. The BIA held that Hanna’s admission of removability was binding. Id.\\nat 385. This circuit reversed, determining that the Michigan statute was divisible and that it\\nencompassed both CIMT and non-CIMT offenses. Id. at 392. Specifically, the court pointed out\\nthat if Hanna’s crime involved only “intent to place the victim in apprehension of an immediate\\nbattery” as opposed to “intent to injure,” then his offense would not qualify as a CIMT. Id.\\n(citing Singh, 321 F. App’x at 475–76, 480.) The court then remanded the case to the BIA, id. at\\n393, as the immigration court “ha[d] yet to consider directly whether Hanna’s underlying offense\\nis a CIMT,” and noted that nothing in the record indicated whether Hanna’s conviction had\\ninvolved intent to injure or merely intent to instill apprehension, id. at 392.\\n\\n 1We do not defer to Molina’s BIA decision because it is an unpublished, single member decision that lacks\\nprecedential value. Lockhart v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 251, 262 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Moreover, even if the statute were\\nambiguous, a non-precedential decision . . . is not entitled to Chevron deference.”).\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 5\\n\\n\\n The BIA argues that Hanna only suggested that MCL § 750.82 was not a CIMT, without\\naffirmatively so holding, and remanded for the BIA to decide the question officially. This is\\nincorrect—the Hanna court explicitly held that § 750.82 is not categorically a CIMT. For\\nexample, the Hanna decision includes statements such as “Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 is a\\ndivisible statute, encompassing offenses that are and are not CIMTs,” Hanna, 740 F.3d at 392,\\nand “We now recognize Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 as divisible, and as such, the statute\\nencompasses non-CIMT offenses,” id. at 390. The most natural reading of these statements\\nindicates that the court found the statute to include offenses that are not CIMTs.\\n\\n Although the Hanna court remanded the case, it instructed the BIA to determine under\\nwhich divisible part of the statute Hanna had been convicted. In other words, if the BIA found\\nthat Hanna had only the intent to instill apprehension, rather than the intent to injure, the Hanna\\ncourt would have the BIA conclude that he had not been convicted of a CIMT. In fact, the\\ncourt’s specific instructions for the BIA to review the record implies that the BIA was supposed\\nto determine the factual question of Hanna’s intent level, rather than the legal question of\\nwhether intent to instill apprehension alone is sufficient for an offense to qualify as a CIMT. See\\nid. at 393 (“The immigration courts should have the opportunity to review the record and\\ndetermine [whether Hanna’s underlying offense is a CIMT].”). Moreover, the Hanna court\\nrepeatedly focused on the unresolved factual issue of Hanna’s intent: “[a]lthough it is not\\ndispositive, Hanna’s record of conviction does not suggest facts qualifying his offense as a\\nCIMT,” and “[i]n our review of the record, we find nothing suggesting that Hanna’s November\\n1996 assault necessarily involved the intent to injure as opposed to the intent to place the victim\\nin apprehension of an immediate battery.” Id. at 392. This focus on the record and the equivocal\\nstatements about the exact intent underlying Hanna’s assault conviction show that that was the\\nquestion left for the agency to decide upon remand. Thus, in Hanna, we held that MCL § 750.82\\nencompasses convictions that are not CIMTs, and we did not remand the case to the agency to\\ndecide that issue.\\n\\n The IJ also argues that Hanna is not binding because it was incorrect about the divisibility\\nof MCL § 750.82. In light of more recent Supreme Court decisions, both parties agree that the\\nstatute in question is not divisible. See United States v. Harris, 853 F.3d. 318, 320 (6th Cir.\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 6\\n\\n\\n2017) (treating MCL § 750.82 as indivisible.) However, given that the Hanna court explicitly\\nheld that MCL § 750.82 included conduct that did not qualify as a CIMT, whether the statute is\\ndivisible or not is irrelevant. In fact, if the statute is indivisible, that means that no conviction\\nunder it can constitute a CIMT. See In Re Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. 239, 241 (BIA 2007) (“[A]\\nconviction will be found to be for a crime involving moral turpitude only if the full range of the\\nconduct prohibited in the statute supports such a finding.”); see also Lovano v. Lynch, 846 F.3d\\n815, 817–18 (6th Cir. 2017) (applying the “categorical approach” to determine whether a state\\nassault-and-battery statute was a CIMT and considering “whether the full range of conduct\\nencompassed by the statute constitutes a [CIMT].” (quoting Serrato–Soto v. Holder, 570 F.3d\\n686, 689 (6th Cir. 2009))). The Hanna court’s error in determining the statute to be divisible\\ndoes not affect its analysis of whether the statute encompasses conduct that would not qualify as\\na CIMT; the lack of divisibility merely means that we need not determine whether Molina was\\nconvicted under the intent to threaten or the intent to injure prong of the statute.\\n\\n In Hanna, we held that MCL § 750.82 is not categorically a CIMT. Today, we conclude\\nthat the Michigan statute is not divisible. Thus, we hold that MCL § 750.82 is not a CIMT, and\\nthat Molina is not removable based on a conviction for a CIMT.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Accordingly, we reverse the BIA and remand for further proceedings in accordance with\\nthis opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4360962/\", \"author_raw\": \"JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"SUHRHEINRICH"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GIBBONS"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KETHLEDGE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583709/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Julio Edgardo Molina HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-23\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0010p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n JULIO EDGARDO MOLINA HERNANDEZ, ┐\n Petitioner, │\n │\n > No. 17-3977\n V. │\n │\n │\n MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, │\n Respondent. │\n ┘\n\n On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals;\n No. A 205 657 285.\n\n Decided and Filed: January 23, 2019\n\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Russell Reid Abrutyn, ABRUTYN LAW PLLC, Berkley, Michigan, for Petitioner.\nKathryn M. McKinney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,\nfor Respondent.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Julio Molina Hernandez (“Molina”) appeals\nthe Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) finding him removable on the basis that\nhis felonious assault conviction under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 is a crime involving moral\nturpitude (“CIMT”), (2) denying him asylum and withholding of removal, and (3) denying him\nprotection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Molina also argues that the term\n“CIMT” is unconstitutionally vague. Because Molina reasonably relied on this circuit’s decision\n\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 2\n\n\nin Hanna v. Holder, 740 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2014), which held that the Michigan felonious assault\nstatute is not categorically a CIMT, we reverse the BIA and find that Molina is not removable\nbased on his prior conviction. Accordingly, Molina’s applications for asylum, withholding of\nremoval, and protection under the CAT are moot and we will not issue a ruling on those\narguments.\n\n I.\n\n Molina was born in El Salvador and grew up in an area where the “18th Street” gang was\nactive. The gang attempted to recruit Molina, and Molina claims that his uncle was murdered in\n2008 because he refused to join the gang. Soon thereafter, Molina moved to San Vicente, which\nwas located in MS-13 gang territory. Again, the MS-13 gang pressured Molina to join and beat\nhim up several times when he refused. On September 25, 2012, when he was fifteen, Molina\nillegally entered the United States. He was granted permanent resident status on July 9, 2014 as\na Special Immigrant Juvenile. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27)(J), 1255(h). He was eventually\ndeclared dependent by a juvenile court of the United States and placed in foster care.\n\n On March 16, 2016, Molina pled guilty to assault with intent to rob, unarmed, under\nMCL § 750.88. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) initiated removal proceedings\nunder 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), alleging that removal was appropriate because Molina had\nbeen convicted of a CIMT within five years of his admission for which a sentence of at least one\nyear could be imposed. However, Molina’s conviction was vacated because he did not receive\nthe constitutionally required advice about the immigration consequences of his plea. He then\npled guilty to felonious assault under MCL § 750.82. ICE continued to assert that he was\nremovable, arguing that felonious assault also constituted a CIMT.\n\n The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Molina’s motion to terminate his removal\nproceedings, and his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the\nCAT, and ordered him removed. The IJ determined that Molina was ineligible for asylum,\nwithholding of removal, and protection under the CAT because his conviction was for a\nparticularly serious crime. Alternatively, the IJ denied Molina’s petition for asylum and\nwithholding of removal on the merits, finding that there was no nexus between the harm that\n\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 3\n\n\nMolina experienced and his fears of returning to El Salvador. The IJ also denied Molina’s\napplication for CAT protection on the merits because Molina had not demonstrated that the\ngovernment of El Salvador would torture him or acquiesce to such treatment.\n\n Molina timely appealed to the BIA, but the BIA denied his appeal and sustained the\nCIMT removal charge. The BIA also agreed that Molina had been convicted of a particularly\nserious crime and denied protection under CAT. Molina now appeals this BIA decision.\n\n II.\n\n In appeals from the BIA, this court reviews questions of law de novo. Khalili v. Holder,\n557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed deferentially\nfor substantial evidence—reversal is appropriate not where the court may have decided\ndifferently, but only if the court is compelled to the opposite conclusion. Koulibaly v. Mukasey,\n541 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2008). Additionally, we review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s\ndecision to the extent that the IJ’s decision was adopted by the BIA as the final agency\ndetermination. See Khalili, 557 F.3d at 435.\n\n Under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), “[a]ny alien who is convicted of a crime involving\nmoral turpitude committed within five years . . . after the date of admission . . . is deportable.”\nOur decision here involves interpreting a statute administered by a federal agency, so we review\nthe agency’s interpretation under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,\nInc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under that standard, if “Congress has directly spoken to the precise\nquestion at issue” in the text of the statute, we give effect to Congress’s answer without regard to\nany divergent answers offered by the agency or anyone else. Id. at 842–43. But if the statute is\nambiguous with respect to the specific issue, “the question for the court is whether the agency’s\nanswer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843. This court has\npreviously held that the term “crime of moral turpitude,” as used in 8 U.S.C.\n§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is ambiguous, and thus that the BIA’s interpretation of that term is\ngenerally entitled to deference. See Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 2012).\nYet the Board’s interpretation of that term in this case is not entitled to deference, because it\ncomes in an unpublished, single-member decision that lacks precedential value. See Lockhart v.\n\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 4\n\n\nNapolitano, 753 F.3d 251, 262 (6th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the court “review[s] de novo the\nBIA’s interpretation of state criminal statutes in decisions regarding CIMTs.” Id. at 477 (citing\nWala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007); Partyka v. Attorney Gen. of the United\nStates, 417 F.3d 408, 411 (3d Cir. 2005)); see also Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700, 703 (6th\nCir. 2010), rev’d on other grounds, Sellers v. Lynch, 630 F. App’x 464 (6th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e\nreview de novo whether the elements of a federal crime fit the BIA’s definition of a CIMT.”\n(citing Smalley v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 2003))).\n\n At issue in this case is the Michigan felonious assault statute:\n\n [A] person who assaults another person with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron\n bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon without intending to commit\n murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty of a felony\n punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than\n $2,000.00, or both.\n\nMCL § 750.82. Here, the BIA held that MCL § 750.82 constituted a CIMT because the\n“dangerous weapon” element elevated the crime from simple assault to CIMT status. However,\nthe BIA’s decision is at odds with this circuit’s precedent in Hanna v. Holder.1 In Hanna, the\nalien, Hanna, had been convicted of Michigan felonious assault under MCL § 750.82 and had\nconceded removability through his first attorney. 740 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2014). Later,\nwhen represented by new counsel, he argued that his MCL § 750.82 conviction did not constitute\na CIMT. Id. at 384–85. The BIA held that Hanna’s admission of removability was binding. Id.\nat 385. This circuit reversed, determining that the Michigan statute was divisible and that it\nencompassed both CIMT and non-CIMT offenses. Id. at 392. Specifically, the court pointed out\nthat if Hanna’s crime involved only “intent to place the victim in apprehension of an immediate\nbattery” as opposed to “intent to injure,” then his offense would not qualify as a CIMT. Id.\n(citing Singh, 321 F. App’x at 475–76, 480.) The court then remanded the case to the BIA, id. at\n393, as the immigration court “ha[d] yet to consider directly whether Hanna’s underlying offense\nis a CIMT,” and noted that nothing in the record indicated whether Hanna’s conviction had\ninvolved intent to injure or merely intent to instill apprehension, id. at 392.\n\n 1We do not defer to Molina’s BIA decision because it is an unpublished, single member decision that lacks\nprecedential value. Lockhart v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 251, 262 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Moreover, even if the statute were\nambiguous, a non-precedential decision . . . is not entitled to Chevron deference.”).\n\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 5\n\n\n The BIA argues that Hanna only suggested that MCL § 750.82 was not a CIMT, without\naffirmatively so holding, and remanded for the BIA to decide the question officially. This is\nincorrect—the Hanna court explicitly held that § 750.82 is not categorically a CIMT. For\nexample, the Hanna decision includes statements such as “Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 is a\ndivisible statute, encompassing offenses that are and are not CIMTs,” Hanna, 740 F.3d at 392,\nand “We now recognize Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 as divisible, and as such, the statute\nencompasses non-CIMT offenses,” id. at 390. The most natural reading of these statements\nindicates that the court found the statute to include offenses that are not CIMTs.\n\n Although the Hanna court remanded the case, it instructed the BIA to determine under\nwhich divisible part of the statute Hanna had been convicted. In other words, if the BIA found\nthat Hanna had only the intent to instill apprehension, rather than the intent to injure, the Hanna\ncourt would have the BIA conclude that he had not been convicted of a CIMT. In fact, the\ncourt’s specific instructions for the BIA to review the record implies that the BIA was supposed\nto determine the factual question of Hanna’s intent level, rather than the legal question of\nwhether intent to instill apprehension alone is sufficient for an offense to qualify as a CIMT. See\nid. at 393 (“The immigration courts should have the opportunity to review the record and\ndetermine [whether Hanna’s underlying offense is a CIMT].”). Moreover, the Hanna court\nrepeatedly focused on the unresolved factual issue of Hanna’s intent: “[a]lthough it is not\ndispositive, Hanna’s record of conviction does not suggest facts qualifying his offense as a\nCIMT,” and “[i]n our review of the record, we find nothing suggesting that Hanna’s November\n1996 assault necessarily involved the intent to injure as opposed to the intent to place the victim\nin apprehension of an immediate battery.” Id. at 392. This focus on the record and the equivocal\nstatements about the exact intent underlying Hanna’s assault conviction show that that was the\nquestion left for the agency to decide upon remand. Thus, in Hanna, we held that MCL § 750.82\nencompasses convictions that are not CIMTs, and we did not remand the case to the agency to\ndecide that issue.\n\n The IJ also argues that Hanna is not binding because it was incorrect about the divisibility\nof MCL § 750.82. In light of more recent Supreme Court decisions, both parties agree that the\nstatute in question is not divisible. See United States v. Harris, 853 F.3d. 318, 320 (6th Cir.\n\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 6\n\n\n2017) (treating MCL § 750.82 as indivisible.) However, given that the Hanna court explicitly\nheld that MCL § 750.82 included conduct that did not qualify as a CIMT, whether the statute is\ndivisible or not is irrelevant. In fact, if the statute is indivisible, that means that no conviction\nunder it can constitute a CIMT. See In Re Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. 239, 241 (BIA 2007) (“[A]\nconviction will be found to be for a crime involving moral turpitude only if the full range of the\nconduct prohibited in the statute supports such a finding.”); see also Lovano v. Lynch, 846 F.3d\n815, 817–18 (6th Cir. 2017) (applying the “categorical approach” to determine whether a state\nassault-and-battery statute was a CIMT and considering “whether the full range of conduct\nencompassed by the statute constitutes a [CIMT].” (quoting Serrato–Soto v. Holder, 570 F.3d\n686, 689 (6th Cir. 2009))). The Hanna court’s error in determining the statute to be divisible\ndoes not affect its analysis of whether the statute encompasses conduct that would not qualify as\na CIMT; the lack of divisibility merely means that we need not determine whether Molina was\nconvicted under the intent to threaten or the intent to injure prong of the statute.\n\n In Hanna, we held that MCL § 750.82 is not categorically a CIMT. Today, we conclude\nthat the Michigan statute is not divisible. Thus, we hold that MCL § 750.82 is not a CIMT, and\nthat Molina is not removable based on a conviction for a CIMT.\n\n III.\n\n Accordingly, we reverse the BIA and remand for further proceedings in accordance with\nthis opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Julio Edgardo Molina HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-23\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0010p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n JULIO EDGARDO MOLINA HERNANDEZ, ┐\\n Petitioner, │\\n │\\n > No. 17-3977\\n V. │\\n │\\n │\\n MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, │\\n Respondent. │\\n ┘\\n\\n On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals;\\n No. A 205 657 285.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 23, 2019\\n\\n Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Russell Reid Abrutyn, ABRUTYN LAW PLLC, Berkley, Michigan, for Petitioner.\\nKathryn M. McKinney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,\\nfor Respondent.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Julio Molina Hernandez (“Molina”) appeals\\nthe Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision (1) finding him removable on the basis that\\nhis felonious assault conviction under Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 is a crime involving moral\\nturpitude (“CIMT”), (2) denying him asylum and withholding of removal, and (3) denying him\\nprotection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Molina also argues that the term\\n“CIMT” is unconstitutionally vague. Because Molina reasonably relied on this circuit’s decision\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 2\\n\\n\\nin Hanna v. Holder, 740 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2014), which held that the Michigan felonious assault\\nstatute is not categorically a CIMT, we reverse the BIA and find that Molina is not removable\\nbased on his prior conviction. Accordingly, Molina’s applications for asylum, withholding of\\nremoval, and protection under the CAT are moot and we will not issue a ruling on those\\narguments.\\n\\n I.\\n\\n Molina was born in El Salvador and grew up in an area where the “18th Street” gang was\\nactive. The gang attempted to recruit Molina, and Molina claims that his uncle was murdered in\\n2008 because he refused to join the gang. Soon thereafter, Molina moved to San Vicente, which\\nwas located in MS-13 gang territory. Again, the MS-13 gang pressured Molina to join and beat\\nhim up several times when he refused. On September 25, 2012, when he was fifteen, Molina\\nillegally entered the United States. He was granted permanent resident status on July 9, 2014 as\\na Special Immigrant Juvenile. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(27)(J), 1255(h). He was eventually\\ndeclared dependent by a juvenile court of the United States and placed in foster care.\\n\\n On March 16, 2016, Molina pled guilty to assault with intent to rob, unarmed, under\\nMCL § 750.88. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) initiated removal proceedings\\nunder 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), alleging that removal was appropriate because Molina had\\nbeen convicted of a CIMT within five years of his admission for which a sentence of at least one\\nyear could be imposed. However, Molina’s conviction was vacated because he did not receive\\nthe constitutionally required advice about the immigration consequences of his plea. He then\\npled guilty to felonious assault under MCL § 750.82. ICE continued to assert that he was\\nremovable, arguing that felonious assault also constituted a CIMT.\\n\\n The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Molina’s motion to terminate his removal\\nproceedings, and his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the\\nCAT, and ordered him removed. The IJ determined that Molina was ineligible for asylum,\\nwithholding of removal, and protection under the CAT because his conviction was for a\\nparticularly serious crime. Alternatively, the IJ denied Molina’s petition for asylum and\\nwithholding of removal on the merits, finding that there was no nexus between the harm that\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 3\\n\\n\\nMolina experienced and his fears of returning to El Salvador. The IJ also denied Molina’s\\napplication for CAT protection on the merits because Molina had not demonstrated that the\\ngovernment of El Salvador would torture him or acquiesce to such treatment.\\n\\n Molina timely appealed to the BIA, but the BIA denied his appeal and sustained the\\nCIMT removal charge. The BIA also agreed that Molina had been convicted of a particularly\\nserious crime and denied protection under CAT. Molina now appeals this BIA decision.\\n\\n II.\\n\\n In appeals from the BIA, this court reviews questions of law de novo. Khalili v. Holder,\\n557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2009). The BIA’s factual determinations are reviewed deferentially\\nfor substantial evidence—reversal is appropriate not where the court may have decided\\ndifferently, but only if the court is compelled to the opposite conclusion. Koulibaly v. Mukasey,\\n541 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2008). Additionally, we review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s\\ndecision to the extent that the IJ’s decision was adopted by the BIA as the final agency\\ndetermination. See Khalili, 557 F.3d at 435.\\n\\n Under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), “[a]ny alien who is convicted of a crime involving\\nmoral turpitude committed within five years . . . after the date of admission . . . is deportable.”\\nOur decision here involves interpreting a statute administered by a federal agency, so we review\\nthe agency’s interpretation under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,\\nInc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under that standard, if “Congress has directly spoken to the precise\\nquestion at issue” in the text of the statute, we give effect to Congress’s answer without regard to\\nany divergent answers offered by the agency or anyone else. Id. at 842–43. But if the statute is\\nambiguous with respect to the specific issue, “the question for the court is whether the agency’s\\nanswer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. at 843. This court has\\npreviously held that the term “crime of moral turpitude,” as used in 8 U.S.C.\\n§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) is ambiguous, and thus that the BIA’s interpretation of that term is\\ngenerally entitled to deference. See Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 2012).\\nYet the Board’s interpretation of that term in this case is not entitled to deference, because it\\ncomes in an unpublished, single-member decision that lacks precedential value. See Lockhart v.\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 4\\n\\n\\nNapolitano, 753 F.3d 251, 262 (6th Cir. 2009). Therefore, the court “review[s] de novo the\\nBIA’s interpretation of state criminal statutes in decisions regarding CIMTs.” Id. at 477 (citing\\nWala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2007); Partyka v. Attorney Gen. of the United\\nStates, 417 F.3d 408, 411 (3d Cir. 2005)); see also Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700, 703 (6th\\nCir. 2010), rev’d on other grounds, Sellers v. Lynch, 630 F. App’x 464 (6th Cir. 2015) (“[W]e\\nreview de novo whether the elements of a federal crime fit the BIA’s definition of a CIMT.”\\n(citing Smalley v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 332, 336 (5th Cir. 2003))).\\n\\n At issue in this case is the Michigan felonious assault statute:\\n\\n [A] person who assaults another person with a gun, revolver, pistol, knife, iron\\n bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon without intending to commit\\n murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder is guilty of a felony\\n punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than\\n $2,000.00, or both.\\n\\nMCL § 750.82. Here, the BIA held that MCL § 750.82 constituted a CIMT because the\\n“dangerous weapon” element elevated the crime from simple assault to CIMT status. However,\\nthe BIA’s decision is at odds with this circuit’s precedent in Hanna v. Holder.1 In Hanna, the\\nalien, Hanna, had been convicted of Michigan felonious assault under MCL § 750.82 and had\\nconceded removability through his first attorney. 740 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2014). Later,\\nwhen represented by new counsel, he argued that his MCL § 750.82 conviction did not constitute\\na CIMT. Id. at 384–85. The BIA held that Hanna’s admission of removability was binding. Id.\\nat 385. This circuit reversed, determining that the Michigan statute was divisible and that it\\nencompassed both CIMT and non-CIMT offenses. Id. at 392. Specifically, the court pointed out\\nthat if Hanna’s crime involved only “intent to place the victim in apprehension of an immediate\\nbattery” as opposed to “intent to injure,” then his offense would not qualify as a CIMT. Id.\\n(citing Singh, 321 F. App’x at 475–76, 480.) The court then remanded the case to the BIA, id. at\\n393, as the immigration court “ha[d] yet to consider directly whether Hanna’s underlying offense\\nis a CIMT,” and noted that nothing in the record indicated whether Hanna’s conviction had\\ninvolved intent to injure or merely intent to instill apprehension, id. at 392.\\n\\n 1We do not defer to Molina’s BIA decision because it is an unpublished, single member decision that lacks\\nprecedential value. Lockhart v. Napolitano, 573 F.3d 251, 262 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Moreover, even if the statute were\\nambiguous, a non-precedential decision . . . is not entitled to Chevron deference.”).\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 5\\n\\n\\n The BIA argues that Hanna only suggested that MCL § 750.82 was not a CIMT, without\\naffirmatively so holding, and remanded for the BIA to decide the question officially. This is\\nincorrect—the Hanna court explicitly held that § 750.82 is not categorically a CIMT. For\\nexample, the Hanna decision includes statements such as “Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 is a\\ndivisible statute, encompassing offenses that are and are not CIMTs,” Hanna, 740 F.3d at 392,\\nand “We now recognize Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.82 as divisible, and as such, the statute\\nencompasses non-CIMT offenses,” id. at 390. The most natural reading of these statements\\nindicates that the court found the statute to include offenses that are not CIMTs.\\n\\n Although the Hanna court remanded the case, it instructed the BIA to determine under\\nwhich divisible part of the statute Hanna had been convicted. In other words, if the BIA found\\nthat Hanna had only the intent to instill apprehension, rather than the intent to injure, the Hanna\\ncourt would have the BIA conclude that he had not been convicted of a CIMT. In fact, the\\ncourt’s specific instructions for the BIA to review the record implies that the BIA was supposed\\nto determine the factual question of Hanna’s intent level, rather than the legal question of\\nwhether intent to instill apprehension alone is sufficient for an offense to qualify as a CIMT. See\\nid. at 393 (“The immigration courts should have the opportunity to review the record and\\ndetermine [whether Hanna’s underlying offense is a CIMT].”). Moreover, the Hanna court\\nrepeatedly focused on the unresolved factual issue of Hanna’s intent: “[a]lthough it is not\\ndispositive, Hanna’s record of conviction does not suggest facts qualifying his offense as a\\nCIMT,” and “[i]n our review of the record, we find nothing suggesting that Hanna’s November\\n1996 assault necessarily involved the intent to injure as opposed to the intent to place the victim\\nin apprehension of an immediate battery.” Id. at 392. This focus on the record and the equivocal\\nstatements about the exact intent underlying Hanna’s assault conviction show that that was the\\nquestion left for the agency to decide upon remand. Thus, in Hanna, we held that MCL § 750.82\\nencompasses convictions that are not CIMTs, and we did not remand the case to the agency to\\ndecide that issue.\\n\\n The IJ also argues that Hanna is not binding because it was incorrect about the divisibility\\nof MCL § 750.82. In light of more recent Supreme Court decisions, both parties agree that the\\nstatute in question is not divisible. See United States v. Harris, 853 F.3d. 318, 320 (6th Cir.\\n\\f No. 17-3977 Molina Hernandez v. Whitaker Page 6\\n\\n\\n2017) (treating MCL § 750.82 as indivisible.) However, given that the Hanna court explicitly\\nheld that MCL § 750.82 included conduct that did not qualify as a CIMT, whether the statute is\\ndivisible or not is irrelevant. In fact, if the statute is indivisible, that means that no conviction\\nunder it can constitute a CIMT. See In Re Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. 239, 241 (BIA 2007) (“[A]\\nconviction will be found to be for a crime involving moral turpitude only if the full range of the\\nconduct prohibited in the statute supports such a finding.”); see also Lovano v. Lynch, 846 F.3d\\n815, 817–18 (6th Cir. 2017) (applying the “categorical approach” to determine whether a state\\nassault-and-battery statute was a CIMT and considering “whether the full range of conduct\\nencompassed by the statute constitutes a [CIMT].” (quoting Serrato–Soto v. Holder, 570 F.3d\\n686, 689 (6th Cir. 2009))). The Hanna court’s error in determining the statute to be divisible\\ndoes not affect its analysis of whether the statute encompasses conduct that would not qualify as\\na CIMT; the lack of divisibility merely means that we need not determine whether Molina was\\nconvicted under the intent to threaten or the intent to injure prong of the statute.\\n\\n In Hanna, we held that MCL § 750.82 is not categorically a CIMT. Today, we conclude\\nthat the Michigan statute is not divisible. Thus, we hold that MCL § 750.82 is not a CIMT, and\\nthat Molina is not removable based on a conviction for a CIMT.\\n\\n III.\\n\\n Accordingly, we reverse the BIA and remand for further proceedings in accordance with\\nthis opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":159,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4584832,"string":"4,584,832"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BDP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Logitrans International, LLC, Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int'l, Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-25"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3615"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Boggs, Kethledge, Nalbandian\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BOGGS, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0011p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-3615\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n BDP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; LOGITRANS INTERNATIONAL, │\\n LLC, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:17-cv-02054—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 25, 2019\\n\\n Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Duncan H. Brown, LAW OFFICES OF DUNCAN H. BROWN, Northville,\\nMichigan, for Appellant. Troy B. Morris, PEREZ & MORRIS LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for\\nAppellee BDP International. Eric W. Beery, BEERY & SPURLOCK CO., L.P.A., Columbus,\\nOhio, for Appellee Logitrans.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Appellant Dimond Rigging Company, LLC (“Dimond”),\\nappeals from a district-court judgment dismissing its suit against Appellees BDP International,\\nInc. (“BDP”) and Logitrans International, LLC (“Logitrans”) because Dimond’s suit was not\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\ntimely filed within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Carriage of Goods by Sea\\nAct (“COGSA”). We affirm the district court’s judgment.\\n\\n I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\\n\\n Dimond was hired by a Chinese auto manufacturer to “rig, dismantle, wash, and pack,”\\nand ultimately ship several tons of used automotive assembly-line equipment to China (the\\n“Equipment”). Dimond lacked experience in international shipment. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC\\nv. BDP Int’l, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 3d 947, 948 (N.D. Ohio 2018). Dimond alleged that it received\\nan “unsolicited call” from BDP offering to “assume and perform . . . each and every aspect of the\\nshipment.” Ibid. Dimond hired BDP to ship the Equipment. Dimond asserted that BDP did not\\ndisclose that it was not a licensed Ocean Transport Intermediary (“OTI”) by the Federal\\nMaritime Commission. Ibid.\\n\\n In May 2011, BDP informed Dimond that it had obtained a ship and sent a booking note\\nto Dimond that included proposed terms and conditions of the shipment. At that time, the\\nEquipment had not been completely dismantled and weighed. Id. at 948–49. Between May and\\nOctober 2011, Dimond completed these tasks and prepared a “preliminary and estimated packing\\nlist” for BDP. BDP allegedly provided the preliminary packing list when it obtained quotes from\\nthird-party contractors who would load the Equipment. Id. at 949.\\n\\n In October 2011, BDP notified Dimond that the first ship it had booked was no longer\\navailable. Dimond asserted that BDP had “without Dimond’s knowledge, consent or approval”\\nhired Logitrans to “perform some, or all of BDP’s freight forwarding duties including\\nlocating/booking or providing a ship; acting in the capacity as the NVOCC carrier for the\\nshipment . . . and negotiating loading services . . . .” Dimond alleged that BDP misrepresented\\nthat Logitrans was a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier1 (“NVOCC”).\\n\\n BDP and Logitrans hired the Gisele Scan, operated by Scan-Trans, Inc. (“Scan-Trans”),\\nto transport the Equipment from the Port of Cleveland to Xingang, China. BDP prepared a new\\n\\n\\n 1A non-vessel operating common carrier “consolidate[s] cargo from numerous shippers into larger groups\\nfor shipment by an ocean carrier.” Prima U.S. Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 223 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2000). The\\nNVOCC, rather than the ship that transports the cargo, “issues a bill of lading to each shipper.” Ibid.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nBooking Note and Bill of Lading for the transportation of the Equipment aboard the Gisele\\nScan.2 Dimond Rigging Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d at 949. The Booking Note identified Dimond3 as\\nthe Merchant,4 Logitrans as the Carrier, Scan-Trans as the Agent-Shipbrokers, and BDP as the\\nMerchant’s Representative. Ibid.\\n\\n The Booking Note incorporated the Bill of Lading. The following terms in the Bill of\\nLading are of particular relevance.\\n\\n (a) In case the Contract evidenced by this Bill of Lading is subject to the Carriage\\n of Goods by Sea Act of the United States of America, 1936 (“U.S. COGSA”),\\n then the provisions stated in said Act shall govern before loading and after\\n discharge and throughout the entire time the cargo is in the Carrier’s custody and\\n in which event freight shall be payable on the cargo coming into the Carrier’s\\n custody.\\n\\nThe Bill of Lading also contained a “Himalaya Clause.”5\\n\\n (a) It is hereby expressly agreed that no servant or agent of the Carrier (which for\\n the purpose of this Clause includes every independent contractor from time to\\n time employed by the Carrier) shall in any circumstances whatsoever be under\\n any liability whatsoever to the Merchant under this contract of carriage for any\\n loss, damage or delay of whatsoever kind arising or resulting directly or indirectly\\n from any act, neglect or default on his part while acting in the course of or in\\n connection with his employment.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2A bill of lading is a contract for the transportation of goods. It “records that a carrier has received goods\\nfrom the party that wishes to ship them, states the terms of carriage, and serves as evidence of the contract for\\ncarriage.” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 18–19 (2004).\\n 3The Bill of Lading lists “Absolute Rigging and Millwrights” as the Merchant. Dimond appears in various\\ncases as Dimond Rigging Company, LLC d/b/a Absolute Rigging and Millwrights. See Federal Marine Terminals,\\nInc. v. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01329, 2014 WL 4809427 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2014).\\n 4The Bill of Lading defines “Merchant” to include “the charterer, shipper, the receiver, the consignor, the\\nconsignee, the holder of the Bill of Lading, the owner of the cargo and any person entitled to possession of the\\ncargo.”\\n 5A “Himalaya Clause” is a clause that imposes liability limitations. See Kirby, 543 U.S. at 20 & n.2. The\\nname originates from an English case, Adler v. Dickinson (The Himalaya), [1955] 1 Q.B. 158, [1954] 2 Lloyd’s List\\nL. Rep. 267, in which personal-injury claims were brought against the master and boatswain of the Himalaya. The\\nHimalaya’s owners had included “customary exculpatory clauses” protecting them from liability for negligent injury\\nto passengers. See Joseph C. Sweeney, Crossing the Himalayas: Exculpatory Clauses in Global Transport. Norfolk\\nSouthern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 385, 2004 AMC 2705 (2004), 36 J. Mar. L. & Com.\\n155, 161 (2005).\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n (b) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions in this Clause,\\n every exemption from liability, limitation, condition and liberty herein contained\\n and every right, defence and immunity of whatsoever nature applicable to the\\n Carrier or to which the Carrier is entitled, shall also be available and shall extend\\n to protect every such servant and agent of the Carrier as aforesaid.\\n\\nBoth Logitrans and Dimond signed the Booking Note.\\n\\n Dimond alleged that it was not informed about a pre-load inspection meeting and that\\nLogitrans and BDP did not attend the meeting either. This, Dimond asserted, led to delays and\\nincreased costs, because the Gisele Scan was not able to take on all the Equipment, and the\\nstevedores would not load all the Equipment because it was not included in their quote. Dimond\\nRigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 949–50. Ultimately, the Gisele Scan departed, leaving behind\\napproximately 34 pieces of equipment. It arrived in China in March 2012.\\n\\n As a result of these shipping difficulties, Dimond became involved in multiple lawsuits,\\nincluding suits with its Chinese customer and the stevedores. Id. at 950. Dimond filed a\\nComplaint against BDP in the Northern District of Ohio on July 11, 2013, alleging Breach of\\nFiduciary Duty, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraud. Ibid. Dimond never served BDP with the\\nComplaint and, when the summons expired, the district court dismissed the Complaint without\\nprejudice. Ibid. On August 9, 2017, Dimond filed a Motion to Amend and Praecipe for Issuance\\nof Amended Summons for its 2013 suit against BDP. The district court denied the Motion.\\nDimond filed a five-count Complaint against BDP and Logitrans on October 2, 2017, asserting\\nclaims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraudulent non-disclosure; (3) intentional fraud;\\n(4) breach of agreement, failure to perform and illegality of contract; and (5) unjust enrichment.\\n\\n II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY\\n\\n BDP filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Dimond had failed to state a claim upon\\nwhich relief could be granted because the statute of limitations on Dimond’s claims had run.\\nLogitrans was served on November 27, 2017. Logitrans’s president sent Dimond’s counsel a\\nletter on December 19, 2017, denying liability and responding to Dimond’s complaint. Logitrans\\ndid not file a copy of the letter with the court. Dimond filed a Request for an Entry of Default\\npursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) on December 29, 2017. Logitrans retained counsel and filed a\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nMemorandum opposing Dimond’s Request on January 3, 2018. The district court denied\\nDimond’s Request for Entry of Default and ordered Logitrans to file an amended answer.\\nLogitrans then filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting the same defense that BDP used—that the\\nstatute of limitations had run.\\n\\n The district court granted the Motions to Dismiss. It explained that, because bills of\\nlading are “maritime contracts, governed by federal maritime law[,]” COGSA governed\\nDimond’s claims. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 952–53. Because COGSA has a one-\\nyear statute of limitations for cargo claims in contract or tort that begins to run after the goods\\nhave been delivered, or on the date the goods should have been delivered, the district court\\nconcluded that Dimond should have filed its claims in May 2013, one year after the goods were\\nreleased to Dimond’s customer. Because it did not, the district court concluded that Dimond’s\\nclaims were outside the statute of limitations. Id. at 953. In reaching this conclusion, the district\\ncourt substantially relied on Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC, No.\\n1:13-cv-01329, 2014 WL 4809427 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2014), a related case in which the same\\ndistrict court (albeit by a different judge) had already determined that, through the Bill of Lading,\\nCOGSA governed the shipment of the Equipment, and the Himalaya Clause extended COGSA to\\nindependent contractors. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 950. The district court also\\nrejected Dimond’s arguments that BDP and Logitrans should be estopped from benefiting from\\nCOGSA’s one-year statute of limitations because they allegedly did not comply with certain\\nlicensing requirements. The district court explained that, because COGSA does not include\\nlicensure requirements, Dimond failed to sufficiently allege that BDP and Logitrans were in\\nviolation of COGSA. Id. at 953–54.\\n\\n Dimond appealed the district court’s order granting the Motions to Dismiss. It also\\nasserts that the district court should have entered a default against Logitrans.\\n\\n III. ANALYSIS\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review a district court’s dismissal of claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) de\\nnovo. Marks v. Newcourt Credit Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 451 (6th Cir. 2003). In reviewing the\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nmotion, the court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true, construed in the light\\nmost favorable to the plaintiff. See Hall v. Callahan, 727 F.3d 450, 453 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n“Dismissal of a complaint because it is barred by the statute of limitations is proper when ‘the\\nstatement of the claim affirmatively shows that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would\\nentitle him to relief.’” Gibson v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 943, 946 (6th Cir. 2002)\\n(emphasis in original) (quoting Duncan v. Leeds, 742 F.2d 989, 991 (6th Cir. 1984)).\\n\\n B. COGSA\\n\\n The primary issues in this case are whether COGSA controls, and whether BDP and\\nLogitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of COGSA. If so, then Dimond should have filed its\\nclaim within one year after delivery, or the date when the goods should have been delivered.6\\nSee 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)). The Equipment arrived in China on March 21, 2012 and\\nwas released to Dimond’s customer on May 17, 2012. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953.\\nAccordingly, if COGSA applies, Dimond should have filed its claims against BDP and Logitrans\\nby May 17, 2013, ibid.; 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)), and the district court correctly granted\\nAppellees’ Motions to Dismiss.\\n\\n 1. Does COGSA Control the Bill of Lading?\\n\\n Dimond argues that this is not a maritime dispute, but instead is about “breaches of\\ncontractual agreements, breaches of fiduciary duties, and outright fraud,” which do not create\\nmaritime jurisdiction. In determining whether this is a maritime dispute, the “answer ‘depends\\nupon . . . the nature and character of the contract’ and the true criterion is whether it has\\n‘reference to maritime service or maritime transactions.’” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S.\\n14, 24 (2004) (quoting North Pac. S.S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co.,\\n249 U.S. 119, 125 (1919)). This case arises from a contract to transport used manufacturing\\nequipment by sea from the United States to China. It is plainly a maritime transaction.\\n\\n\\n\\n 6Dimond argues that it “was not a party to the contract of carriage with the ship/carrier directly, or via any\\nauthorized agent . . . .” The district court rejected this argument because Dimond is listed as a party on the bill of\\nlading. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC v. BDP Int’l, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 3d 947, 952 n.1 (N.D. Ohio 2018). Dimond\\nsigned the Bill of Lading. We agree with the district court.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nDimond’s argument is without basis. “When a contract is a maritime one, and the dispute is not\\ninherently local, federal law controls the contract interpretation.” Id. at 22–23.\\n\\n Dimond points out that the Bill of Lading and Rider contain multiple choice-of-law\\noptions, including Hague-Visby,7 COGSA, and English law. Dimond does not, however, argue\\nthat we should apply Hague-Visby or English law, or submit the matter to arbitration in London.\\nInstead, Dimond suggests that these options render the Bill of Lading ambiguous and\\nunenforceable.8 Dimond maintains that the true reason COGSA does not apply is because BDP\\nand Logitrans were not in compliance with federal statutes and regulations concerning shipping,\\nand therefore the court should apply Ohio law to assess whether Dimond’s claims were timely\\nfiled. BDP and Logitrans argue that the Bill of Lading, coupled with Dimond’s allegations,\\ndemonstrate that COGSA does apply, and urge us to affirm the district court’s ruling. Even\\nassuming that COGSA does not apply, BDP and Logitrans maintain that Dimond’s claims are\\nnot timely under the applicable state statutes of limitations.\\n\\n COGSA applies “to all contracts for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the\\nUnited States in foreign trade.” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13); see Fortis Corp. Ins., S.A. v.\\nViken Ship Mgmt. AS, 597 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir. 2010). “[E]very bill of lading or similar\\ndocument of title which is evidence of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea from ports of\\nthe United States, in foreign trade, shall contain a statement that it shall have effect subject to the\\nprovisions of this [Act].” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13).\\n\\n United States courts must apply COGSA if the statute so requires. See Acciai Speciali\\nTerni USA v. M/V BERANE, 182 F. Supp. 2d 503, 506 (D. Md. 2002) (“United States courts\\n\\n 7Hague-Visby refers to the 1924 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law\\nRelating to Bills of Lading, which was subsequently modified by the Hague-Visby Amendments of 1968. See Royal\\nIns. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n 8Dimond also suggests that an amended bill of lading, issued when the Gisele Scan stopped in Denmark,\\nthat covers the remainder of the shipment from Denmark to China supersedes the Bill of Lading. We considered a\\nrelated question in Royal Ins. Co., 525 F.3d at 418–20. There we held that an “intermediary stop” pursuant to a\\nmaritime contract that uses multiple modes of transportation with an ultimate destination in the United States does\\nnot “prevent the application of COGSA liability rules as a matter of federal common law.” Id. at 420. Under Royal\\nIns. Co., we conclude that the stop in Denmark, even one that resulted in an amended Bill of Lading (Dimond\\nasserts that this was due to damage to the cargo from a storm), does not bar the application of COGSA because this\\nis a contract for carriage of goods by sea from a port of the United States. See 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13).\\nFurther, the Denmark Bill of Lading includes an identical COGSA clause to the original Bill of Lading.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nmust apply COGSA, when its terms so require, regardless [of] where bills of lading were issued\\nor whence carriage began.”); Farrell Lines Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly Corp., 32 F. Supp. 2d\\n118, 128 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“Courts must apply COGSA, when its terms so require, no matter\\nwhere the bill of lading was issued.”). By the statute’s own terms, COGSA applies to contracts\\nof carriage9 of goods to or from United States ports in foreign trade. See 46 U.S.C. § 30701\\n(Notes § 13) (“[COGSA] shall apply to all contracts for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports\\nof the United States in foreign trade.”); Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line\\nLtd., 525 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2008) (listing cases). Because the Bill of Lading is a contract to\\ntransport goods in foreign trade from a United States port (Cleveland) to a foreign port (China),\\nCOGSA applies.10\\n\\n 2. Are BDP and Logitrans Carriers?\\n\\n The question remains whether BDP and Logitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of\\nCOGSA, and so may fairly invoke its one-year statute of limitations. The Bill of Lading lists\\nLogitrans as the carrier. Dimond acknowledges this, then reiterates that COGSA cannot apply\\n\\n\\n 9Under COGSA:\\n The term “contract of carriage” applies only to contracts of carriage covered by\\n a bill of lading or any similar document of title, insofar as such document relates\\n to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar\\n document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the\\n moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the\\n relations between a carrier and a holder of the same.\\n46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 1(b)).\\n 10Dimond asserts that we must attempt to “determine what law—maritime or state or federal common\\nlaw—governs the various stages of sea and overland portions of the intermodal transport.” The district court\\nconcluded that Dimond made separate arrangements to transport the Equipment from its plant to Cleveland, and that\\nthe Chinese customer was responsible for transport from the port of arrival, Xingang, to wherever it needed to go.\\nSee Dimond Rigging Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d at 952–53. Dimond’s Complaint asserts that it hired BDP to handle\\nshipping the Equipment to China. Dimond’s brief states that it moved the Equipment to Cleveland by truck and rail\\nand notified BDP that it was doing so.\\n Even if Dimond were to have made arrangements with BDP to cover the overland transportation, we\\nobserve that in Kirby, 543 U.S. at 27, the Supreme Court resolved the question of how federal courts must determine\\nwhether a contract for maritime and land transport is a maritime contract. The Court explained that “so long as a bill\\nof lading requires substantial carriage of goods by sea, its purpose is to effectuate maritime commerce—and thus it\\nis a maritime contract.” Ibid. Even if it provides for some overland transport, it is still a maritime contract as long\\nas the case is not inherently local. Ibid. The Bill of Lading requires transport from the port of Cleveland to\\nXingang. It does not refer to any other ground transportation. We have already concluded that, contrary to\\nDimond’s assertions, this is obviously a maritime dispute.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nbecause it was a non-party to the contract (that it signed) and BDP and Logitrans “are not agents\\nof the vessel or the carrier.” Dimond asserts that this is not a suit “between Dimond and the\\nactual carrier,” the Gisele Scan, but “between Dimond and two companies that represented\\nthemselves as licensed carriers.” Dimond insists that because Logitrans and BDP are not in\\ncompliance with various maritime licensing statutes and regulations, they cannot be carriers. 11\\n\\n BDP argues that because Dimond characterized it as a carrier, freight forwarder, or\\nNVOCC in the Complaint, assuming all allegations are true, it is covered by the COGSA statute\\nof limitations. BDP asserts that COGSA applies “even where a party’s role is uncertain, based\\non how the parties to a contract of carriage represent themselves or are viewed by the other\\nparties to the contract.” The cases BDP cites for this proposition are not authoritative: one is\\nunpublished, and all are from district courts that are not within this circuit. Logitrans maintains\\nthat because it was the Carrier on the Bill of Lading, and based on its role, it was a “carrier”\\nwithin the meaning of COGSA. Both BDP and Logitrans assert that, in any event, the statute of\\nlimitations applies through the Himalaya Clause.\\n\\n The district court observed that Federal Marine Terminals, 2014 WL 4809427, at *3, had\\nfound that the Bill of Lading’s Himalaya Clause included contractors who were not even listed\\non the Bill of Lading. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953. Applying this reasoning, the\\ndistrict court concluded that, “regardless of their specific roles in the transaction,” both Logitrans\\nand BDP were subject to COGSA. Ibid. It did not make any findings regarding whether BDP\\nand Logitrans were “carriers.” Ibid. The problem with this approach is that it ignored the fact\\nthat COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations does not apply to every party in the transaction.\\nSpecifically: “[T]he carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or\\ndamage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the\\ngoods should have been delivered[.]” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)) (emphasis added).\\nParties may extend COGSA by “adding provisions to bills of lading extending the COGSA\\n\\n\\n 11Dimond insists that “the carrier clearly states that Dimond is NOT and was not the shipper in this case.”\\nIt supports this proposition by citing the Denmark Bill of Lading, which expressly identifies Dimond (there d/b/a as\\nAbsolute Rigging and Millwrights, see supra note 3), as the shipper. The other Bill of Lading, which identifies\\nDimond as the “Merchant,” states that that term includes shippers. See supra note 4. We fail to understand how\\nDimond can squarely make this argument in light of the evidence it cites.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nregime to any and all agents or independent contractors who participate in the shipment of goods\\nunder a particular contract.” Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 792 (citing Kirby, 543 U.S. at 30–31). In\\nother words, COGSA permits the use of Himalaya Clauses to limit parties’ liability. Ibid. But\\nmerely because a Bill of Lading contains a Himalaya Clause does not mean that the Clause\\ncovers every entity or individual involved in a transaction.\\n\\n We first consider whether Logitrans and BDP are carriers within the meaning of COGSA.\\nSee Sabah Shipyard v. M/V Harbel Tapper, 178 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that\\nCOGSA liability limits only apply to carriers); Shonac Corp. v. Maersk, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d\\n1020, 1025 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (discussing carriers). A “carrier” under COGSA means “the\\nowner, manager, charterer, agent, or master of a vessel.” 46 U.S.C. § 30701; see also id. (Notes\\n§ 1(a)) (“The term ‘carrier’ includes the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of\\ncarriage with a shipper.”). “COGSA provides that ‘carriers’ are subject to certain statutory\\n‘responsibilities and liabilities,’ and in turn they are provided with certain ‘rights and\\nimmunities,’ such as [a] one-year statute of limitations . . . .” Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 787. An\\nNVOCC, as noted, supra, consolidates cargo from various shippers and issues a bill of lading.\\nPrima U.S. Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 223 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (explaining that NVOCCs\\nare carriers under COGSA). A freight forwarder12 “facilitates the movement of cargo to the\\nocean vessel.” Ibid. “Freight forwarders generally make arrangements for the movement of\\ncargo at the request of clients . . . . a freight forwarder does not issue a bill of lading, and is\\ntherefore not liable to a shipper for anything that occurs to the goods being shipped.” Ibid.\\n(emphasis in original) (citing United States v. Am. Union Trans., 327 U.S. 437, 442–43 (1946)).\\n\\n In Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 789, we considered whether a ship’s manager was a carrier\\nunder COGSA. We focused on the plain language of COGSA in concluding that the manager\\nwas not a carrier. Id. at 789–92. See also Shonac Corp., 159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026 (discussing the\\n“plain language” approach for assessing whether a party is a carrier). Under this approach, a\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12BDP asserts in its brief that it “was and is a licensed NVOCC.” The record contains a copy of BDP’s\\nOcean Transportation Intermediary (“OTI”) License. The License states that BDP is authorized to provide freight-\\nforwarding services.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\ncourt considers whether a party satisfies the statutory definition.13 See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d\\nat 405. This is an assessment of function, rather than form. Prima U.S. Inc., 223 F.3d at 130 n.1\\n(explaining that a party calling itself a freight forwarder that performed carrier functions would\\nbe a carrier). The key inquiry is what the party did. If it issued a bill of lading, then it is usually\\na “carrier” under COGSA. See id. at 129; Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp.,\\n159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026. It is not dispositive that the party hired a third party to actually carry\\nthe goods. See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp., 159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026.\\n\\n We turn to the Complaint and the Bill of Lading. Because this is an appeal from a\\nMotion to Dismiss, we must construe Dimond’s factual allegations as true. See Hall, 727 F.3d at\\n453. Dimond alleged that BDP represented that BDP would handle all aspects of the shipment\\nincluding, inter alia, providing a ship, dispatching the shipments, handling export documents,\\nand preparing bills of lading. Dimond asserted that BDP had “subcontracted its shipping/freight\\nforwarding services/obligations” to Logitrans. BDP apparently obtained one ship for Dimond\\nand provided a booking note, but the first ship became unavailable. BDP also allegedly made all\\nthe arrangements for the stevedores to load the ship. Dimond alleges that after the original ship\\nwas no longer available, BDP notified it that Logitrans would be involved in shipping the\\nEquipment, and that BDP and Logitrans ultimately selected the Gisele Scan. BDP issued the Bill\\nof Lading, which identified Logitrans as the “carrier” to Dimond.\\n\\n Assuming Dimond’s allegations about Appellees’ roles are true, BDP appears to have\\nengaged in some freight-forwarding services, such as securing the ship, handling export\\ndocuments, and making arrangements for stevedores to load the Equipment. See Prima U.S.\\nInc., 223 F.3d at 129. BDP was not responsible for transporting the Equipment to the Port of\\nCleveland—Dimond asserts that it handled that. BDP, however, issued the Bill of Lading, which\\nis a service provided by a carrier. Ibid.; Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp., 159 F.\\n\\n\\n 13In Shonac Corp. v. Maersk, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1026 (S.D. Ohio 2001), the district court\\nidentified a second approach, set forth in Zima Corp. v. M.V. Roman Pazinski, 493 F. Supp. 268, 273 (S.D.N.Y.\\n1980). Under this approach, a party may be determined to be a carrier through a four-factor test: (1) how the party’s\\nobligation is expressed in documents pertaining to the agreement; (2) the history of dealings between the parties;\\n(3) whether the party issued a bill of lading; and (4) how the party charged the shipper. Ibid.; see also Sabah\\nShipyard v. M/V Harbel Tapper, 178 F.3d 400, 405 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999). In Fortis Corp. Ins., S.A. v. Viken Ship\\nMgmt. AS, 597 F.3d 784, 789 (6th Cir. 2010), we focused on the language of the statute instead of a multi-factor test.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nSupp. 2d at 1026. Logitrans was also involved in securing the ship. It is listed as the “carrier”\\non the Bill of Lading. Dimond also refers to Logitrans as the “carrier” in its briefs.\\n\\n Sabah Shipyard is illustrative in resolving whether BDP and Logitrans are “carriers”\\nunder COGSA. In that case, Sabah had to ship some equipment to Malaysia. 178 F.3d at 403.\\nIMB won the bid to transport the equipment. IMB’s agent, Intermarine, issued a bill of lading.\\nAfter some of the equipment slid into the Singapore harbor, Sabah filed suit seeking damages\\nunder COGSA. The district court found that the defendants were liable for negligence but did\\nnot apply a COGSA limit on liability because it held that IMB and Intermarine were forwarders,\\nnot carriers. Ibid. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court erred when it determined\\nthat IMB and Intermarine were not carriers within the meaning of COGSA. Id. at 406. The Fifth\\nCircuit explained that “[t]o determine whether a party is a COGSA carrier, we have followed\\nCOGSA’s plain language, focusing on whether the party entered into a contract of carriage with\\na shipper.” Id. at 405. Because IMB and Intermarine entered into a contract of carriage—\\nnamely, they “agreed to carry Sabah’s goods by sea, and they issued a bill of lading[,]” they were\\ncarriers. Ibid.\\n\\n BDP entered into a contract of carriage with Dimond because it took on the responsibility\\nof transporting the Equipment by sea. BDP issued the Bill of Lading. Dimond Rigging, 320 F.\\nSupp. 3d at 949. BDP is a carrier. See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Bunge Edible Oil Corp.\\nv. M/Vs Torm Rask & Fort Steele, 949 F.2d 786, 788–89 (5th Cir. 1992) (explaining that\\ncharterer of vessel who enters into contract of carriage with shipper is a carrier); Nitram, Inc. v.\\nCretan Life, 599 F.2d 1359, 1370 (5th Cir. 1979) (concluding that party that entered into a\\ncontract of carriage covered by a bill of lading is a carrier within COGSA’s definition).\\nLogitrans also entered into a contract of carriage with Dimond. It signed the Bill of Lading and\\nis identified as the “carrier.” Accordingly, Logitrans is also a carrier. See Bunge Edible Oil\\nCorp., 949 F.2d at 788; Nitram, Inc., 599 F.2d at 1370. Because we conclude that BDP and\\nLogitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of COGSA, there is no need to address the Himalaya\\nClause.\\n\\n Dimond argues that equitable estoppel should bar BDP and Logitrans from benefiting\\nfrom COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations because BDP and Logitrans were not in\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\ncompliance with COGSA. Dimond maintains that we should apply equitable estoppel to “refuse\\nto validate Defendant’s wrongful conduct in this case through a Motion to Dismiss on limitations\\ngrounds arising from a statute with which they did not comply.” Dimond offers a list of various\\nfederal shipping laws and regulations that it asserts BDP and Logitrans have violated and argues\\nthat because they misrepresented their status as licensed entities, they should not be allowed to\\nuse COGSA as a defense. Dimond has not identified any portion of COGSA that the Appellees\\nhave allegedly not complied with.\\n\\n The district court ruled that there was no basis to apply equitable estoppel because\\nCOGSA does not include licensure provisions. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953–54. To\\nbe sure, COGSA does not supersede rights and obligations set forth in other federal statutes. See\\n46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes §§ 8, 12). COGSA establishes “particularized duties and obligations\\nupon, and grants stated immunities” to carriers. Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Mach. Corp.,\\n359 U.S. 297, 301 (1959). We explained in Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 789, that COGSA “was\\ndrafted to address the belief that carriers used their superior bargaining power against shippers\\nwhen contracting for the carriage of goods, and could often dictate the terms of bills of lading to\\nexempt themselves from any liability.” Nonetheless, the district court was quite correct that\\nCOGSA does not concern itself with licensing.\\n\\n Dimond’s complaint does not allege that BDP and Logitrans represented that they were\\nin compliance with COGSA. For Dimond to estop BDP and Logitrans from using COGSA as a\\ndefense, it would have to show that it detrimentally relied on such representations. See Thomas\\nv. Miller, 489 F.3d 293, 302 (2007) (setting out elements of equitable estoppel); see also Oxford\\nShipping Co., Ltd. v. N.H. Trading Corp., 697 F.2d 1, 3–4 (1st Cir. 1982) (equitable estoppel\\nclaim under COGSA). It has not done so.\\n\\n Dimond also maintains that the Bill of Lading is an illegal contract because, as\\nunlicensed entities, BDP and Logitrans could not issue an enforceable Bill of Lading, although\\nDimond suggests that BDP might be a licensed freight forwarder. BDP and Logitrans dispute\\nthe accuracy of Dimond’s licensing arguments. BDP asserts that the record below shows that it\\nhas been a licensed Ocean Transport Intermediary under the Federal Maritime Commission\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n(“FMC”) since 1999.14 Logitrans maintains that it is not required to have a license because it is a\\n“vessel/cargo/charter broker.” Appellees also insist that licensure is irrelevant to the application\\nof COGSA and the lack of a license does not void a contract. As noted above, the district court\\nonly ruled that COGSA does not contain licensing requirements. It did not take judicial notice of\\nBDP’s license or make any findings on that issue.\\n\\n Dimond points to FMC regulations concerning licensing, particularly 46 C.F.R. § 515.3,\\nwhich provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this part, no person in the United States may\\nact as an ocean transport intermediary unless that person holds a valid license issued by the\\nCommission.” Dimond insists that FMC regulations, specifically id. § 515.2(h)(5) and (k)(4),\\nprohibit an unlicensed person (Logitrans) or a licensed freight-forwarder (BDP) from issuing a\\nlegally-enforceable bill of lading. Subsection (h) in that regulation defines “[f]reight forwarding\\nservices,” which “refers to the dispatching of shipments on behalf of others” to facilitate\\nshipments by a common carrier, “which may include, but are not limited to . . . [p]reparing\\nand/or processing common carrier bills of lading or other shipping documents.” Id.\\n§ 515.2(h)(5). Subsection (k)(4) states that NVOCC services “may include . . . [i]ssuing bills of\\nlading or other shipping documents.” Id. (k)(4). This definitional regulation may identify what\\ncertain services within the regulations are or include, but it does not contain any language\\nestablishing, as Dimond argues, that BDP could not issue a legally-enforceable bill of lading.\\n\\n Assuming, for the sake of argument, that an unlicensed entity issued the Bill of Lading,\\nwe briefly consider whether an unlicensed entity may make a valid contract. The parties dispute\\nwhether Adams Express Co. v. Darden, 286 F. 61 (6th Cir. 1923), supports the argument that an\\nunlicensed entity may create a valid and enforceable contact. In Adams Express, the shipper\\narranged for a carrier to transport six horses. In violation of the Interstate Commerce Act, the\\ncarrier misrepresented the horses’ value to pay lower tariff rates. Id. at 62–63. The carrier was\\nnegligent and the car containing the horses wrecked, killing five horses. The shipper sued and\\nwas awarded the value of the horses. The carrier appealed, arguing that because it had violated\\nthe Act, the shipping contract was void. Id. at 63. We explained that whether the contract was\\nvoid and unenforceable depended on the public policy of the United States. Id. at 65. The\\n 14Dimond argues that BDP only obtained a license in 2013, after the events at issue.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nstatute penalized the carrier’s practices (and would have penalized the shipper as well), but it\\n“never declared the contract of carriage unenforceable . . . .” Ibid. We offered the following\\nanalysis: “[W]hen a statute imposes specific penalties for its violation, where the act is not\\nmalum in se, and the purpose of the statute can be accomplished without declaring contracts in\\nviolation thereof illegal, the inference is that it was not the legislative intent to render such\\ncontracts illegal and unenforceable.” Ibid. Applying this principle, we concluded that “Congress\\npresumably believed” that it was better to permit suit to hold a carrier liable for the value of the\\nitems destroyed by its negligence, even if the carrier had violated the Act and was subject to the\\npenalties. Ibid.\\n\\n Dimond argues that Adams Express cannot apply because there are no penalties in the\\nShipping Act for operating without a license and operating without a license is malum in se.15\\nAs to the first point, whatever the Act may say, FMC regulations pursuant to the Act do, in fact,\\nimpose civil penalties for operating without a license. See 46 C.F.R. § 515.1(b) (civil penalty\\nthat does not exceed $9,000 per violation, unless said violation was knowing or willful, in which\\ncase penalty may not exceed $45,000 per violation). Dimond’s insistence that only licensed\\nentities may operate is further undermined by FMC regulations that permit operations without a\\nlicense. See, e.g., id. § 515.4(c) (common carriers or their agents may perform freight-\\nforwarding services without a license with respect to cargo carried under carrier’s own bill of\\nlading).\\n\\n The FMC regulatory scheme surrounding licensing emphasizes experience and character,\\nbut also financial dependability, and compliance with other federal statutes and regulations. See\\nid. § 515.11. The bond requirements ensure that claims against an OTI may be adequately\\ncompensated in the event that a complaint is filed with the FMC—although this is not the sole\\nremedy. See id. § 515.23. It does not appear that the purpose of these regulations may only be\\naccomplished by voiding a bill of lading issued by an unlicensed party in violation of the\\n\\n\\n\\n 15Operating without a license is an act that is purely prohibited by statute, rather than inherently wrong in\\nand of itself. Compare malum in se, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) (“A crime or act that is inherently\\nimmoral, such as murder, arson, or rape.”), with malum prohibitum, id. (“An act that is a crime merely because it is\\nprohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral.”).\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\nregulations. As Dimond has not offered any authority within the Shipping Act or its regulations\\nthat states that such a bill of lading is unenforceable, we reject these arguments.\\n\\n The Bill of Lading is a contract of carriage, subject to COGSA. BDP and Logitrans are\\ncarriers as the term is defined in COGSA. We reject Dimond’s arguments that the Appellees\\nshould be estopped from using the one-year statute of limitations as a defense, and that BDP\\ncould not issue a legally enforceable Bill of Lading. Accordingly, we do not need to address\\nwhether state statutes of limitations would bar Dimond’s action even if COGSA did not apply.\\nThe district court did not err in concluding that COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations barred\\nDimond’s suits.\\n\\n C. Default\\n\\n Dimond asserts that the district court should have entered a default against Logitrans\\nbecause it did not answer Dimond’s Complaint. Within the time permitted to respond,\\nLogitrans’s President sent Dimond a letter that answered the gist of the Complaint. Logitrans,\\nhowever, failed to file any responsive pleading with the court. After Dimond asked the district\\ncourt to enter a default on December 29, 2017, Logitrans filed a memorandum opposing the\\nentry of default on January 3, 2018. The district court denied Dimond’s request for default and\\nordered Logitrans to file an amended answer by January 16. Logitrans filed its motion to dismiss\\nby the deadline.\\n\\n An order that denies a motion for a default is not immediately appealable. McNutt v.\\nCardox Corp., 329 F.2d 107, 108 (6th Cir. 1964). Dimond appealed from the final judgment of\\nthe district court, which would include all prior interlocutory orders and rulings that were not\\nreviewable until the final judgment. See Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick &\\nGMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 993 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A]n appeal from a final judgment\\ngenerally brings up all prior interlocutory orders and rulings that were not reviewable until the\\nentry of a final judgment.”). The district court dismissed Dimond’s case, and therefore the denial\\nof the motion of default is reviewable along with the order of dismissal. Because Dimond has\\nappealed from the entry of a final judgment, the court has jurisdiction over this issue on appeal.\\nIbid.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n Logitrans argues that Dimond has waived this issue on appeal because it did not identify\\nthis issue in the “issues presented for review” section of its brief.16 Federal Rule of Appellate\\nProcedure 28(a)(5) states that the appellant’s brief “must contain . . . a statement of the issues\\npresented for review . . . .” (Emphasis added). Applying this rule, we have concluded that when\\nan appellant does not comply by listing all the issues presented for review in the statement of\\nissues, the appellant waives that argument. See United States v. Calvetti, 836 F.3d 654, 664 (6th\\nCir. 2016); United States v. Honeycutt, 816 F.3d 362, 370 (6th Cir. 2016), rev’d on other\\ngrounds by 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017); Barrett v. Detroit Heading, LLC, 311 F. App’x 779, 796 (6th\\nCir. 2009). Because Dimond did not include its claim that the district court should have granted\\nit a default against Logitrans in its statement of issues, it is waived.\\n\\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16Dimond offers no response to this argument in its Reply Brief.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4362085/\", \"author_raw\": \"BOGGS, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BOGGS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KETHLEDGE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"NALBANDIAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4584832/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BDP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Logitrans International, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-25\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0011p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, ┐\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\n │\n > No. 18-3615\n v. │\n │\n │\n BDP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; LOGITRANS INTERNATIONAL, │\n LLC, │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\n No. 1:17-cv-02054—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: January 25, 2019\n\n Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Duncan H. Brown, LAW OFFICES OF DUNCAN H. BROWN, Northville,\nMichigan, for Appellant. Troy B. Morris, PEREZ & MORRIS LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for\nAppellee BDP International. Eric W. Beery, BEERY & SPURLOCK CO., L.P.A., Columbus,\nOhio, for Appellee Logitrans.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Appellant Dimond Rigging Company, LLC (“Dimond”),\nappeals from a district-court judgment dismissing its suit against Appellees BDP International,\nInc. (“BDP”) and Logitrans International, LLC (“Logitrans”) because Dimond’s suit was not\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 2\n\n\ntimely filed within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Carriage of Goods by Sea\nAct (“COGSA”). We affirm the district court’s judgment.\n\n I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\n Dimond was hired by a Chinese auto manufacturer to “rig, dismantle, wash, and pack,”\nand ultimately ship several tons of used automotive assembly-line equipment to China (the\n“Equipment”). Dimond lacked experience in international shipment. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC\nv. BDP Int’l, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 3d 947, 948 (N.D. Ohio 2018). Dimond alleged that it received\nan “unsolicited call” from BDP offering to “assume and perform . . . each and every aspect of the\nshipment.” Ibid. Dimond hired BDP to ship the Equipment. Dimond asserted that BDP did not\ndisclose that it was not a licensed Ocean Transport Intermediary (“OTI”) by the Federal\nMaritime Commission. Ibid.\n\n In May 2011, BDP informed Dimond that it had obtained a ship and sent a booking note\nto Dimond that included proposed terms and conditions of the shipment. At that time, the\nEquipment had not been completely dismantled and weighed. Id. at 948–49. Between May and\nOctober 2011, Dimond completed these tasks and prepared a “preliminary and estimated packing\nlist” for BDP. BDP allegedly provided the preliminary packing list when it obtained quotes from\nthird-party contractors who would load the Equipment. Id. at 949.\n\n In October 2011, BDP notified Dimond that the first ship it had booked was no longer\navailable. Dimond asserted that BDP had “without Dimond’s knowledge, consent or approval”\nhired Logitrans to “perform some, or all of BDP’s freight forwarding duties including\nlocating/booking or providing a ship; acting in the capacity as the NVOCC carrier for the\nshipment . . . and negotiating loading services . . . .” Dimond alleged that BDP misrepresented\nthat Logitrans was a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier1 (“NVOCC”).\n\n BDP and Logitrans hired the Gisele Scan, operated by Scan-Trans, Inc. (“Scan-Trans”),\nto transport the Equipment from the Port of Cleveland to Xingang, China. BDP prepared a new\n\n\n 1A non-vessel operating common carrier “consolidate[s] cargo from numerous shippers into larger groups\nfor shipment by an ocean carrier.” Prima U.S. Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 223 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2000). The\nNVOCC, rather than the ship that transports the cargo, “issues a bill of lading to each shipper.” Ibid.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 3\n\n\nBooking Note and Bill of Lading for the transportation of the Equipment aboard the Gisele\nScan.2 Dimond Rigging Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d at 949. The Booking Note identified Dimond3 as\nthe Merchant,4 Logitrans as the Carrier, Scan-Trans as the Agent-Shipbrokers, and BDP as the\nMerchant’s Representative. Ibid.\n\n The Booking Note incorporated the Bill of Lading. The following terms in the Bill of\nLading are of particular relevance.\n\n (a) In case the Contract evidenced by this Bill of Lading is subject to the Carriage\n of Goods by Sea Act of the United States of America, 1936 (“U.S. COGSA”),\n then the provisions stated in said Act shall govern before loading and after\n discharge and throughout the entire time the cargo is in the Carrier’s custody and\n in which event freight shall be payable on the cargo coming into the Carrier’s\n custody.\n\nThe Bill of Lading also contained a “Himalaya Clause.”5\n\n (a) It is hereby expressly agreed that no servant or agent of the Carrier (which for\n the purpose of this Clause includes every independent contractor from time to\n time employed by the Carrier) shall in any circumstances whatsoever be under\n any liability whatsoever to the Merchant under this contract of carriage for any\n loss, damage or delay of whatsoever kind arising or resulting directly or indirectly\n from any act, neglect or default on his part while acting in the course of or in\n connection with his employment.\n\n\n\n 2A bill of lading is a contract for the transportation of goods. It “records that a carrier has received goods\nfrom the party that wishes to ship them, states the terms of carriage, and serves as evidence of the contract for\ncarriage.” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 18–19 (2004).\n 3The Bill of Lading lists “Absolute Rigging and Millwrights” as the Merchant. Dimond appears in various\ncases as Dimond Rigging Company, LLC d/b/a Absolute Rigging and Millwrights. See Federal Marine Terminals,\nInc. v. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01329, 2014 WL 4809427 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2014).\n 4The Bill of Lading defines “Merchant” to include “the charterer, shipper, the receiver, the consignor, the\nconsignee, the holder of the Bill of Lading, the owner of the cargo and any person entitled to possession of the\ncargo.”\n 5A “Himalaya Clause” is a clause that imposes liability limitations. See Kirby, 543 U.S. at 20 & n.2. The\nname originates from an English case, Adler v. Dickinson (The Himalaya), [1955] 1 Q.B. 158, [1954] 2 Lloyd’s List\nL. Rep. 267, in which personal-injury claims were brought against the master and boatswain of the Himalaya. The\nHimalaya’s owners had included “customary exculpatory clauses” protecting them from liability for negligent injury\nto passengers. See Joseph C. Sweeney, Crossing the Himalayas: Exculpatory Clauses in Global Transport. Norfolk\nSouthern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 385, 2004 AMC 2705 (2004), 36 J. Mar. L. & Com.\n155, 161 (2005).\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 4\n\n\n (b) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions in this Clause,\n every exemption from liability, limitation, condition and liberty herein contained\n and every right, defence and immunity of whatsoever nature applicable to the\n Carrier or to which the Carrier is entitled, shall also be available and shall extend\n to protect every such servant and agent of the Carrier as aforesaid.\n\nBoth Logitrans and Dimond signed the Booking Note.\n\n Dimond alleged that it was not informed about a pre-load inspection meeting and that\nLogitrans and BDP did not attend the meeting either. This, Dimond asserted, led to delays and\nincreased costs, because the Gisele Scan was not able to take on all the Equipment, and the\nstevedores would not load all the Equipment because it was not included in their quote. Dimond\nRigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 949–50. Ultimately, the Gisele Scan departed, leaving behind\napproximately 34 pieces of equipment. It arrived in China in March 2012.\n\n As a result of these shipping difficulties, Dimond became involved in multiple lawsuits,\nincluding suits with its Chinese customer and the stevedores. Id. at 950. Dimond filed a\nComplaint against BDP in the Northern District of Ohio on July 11, 2013, alleging Breach of\nFiduciary Duty, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraud. Ibid. Dimond never served BDP with the\nComplaint and, when the summons expired, the district court dismissed the Complaint without\nprejudice. Ibid. On August 9, 2017, Dimond filed a Motion to Amend and Praecipe for Issuance\nof Amended Summons for its 2013 suit against BDP. The district court denied the Motion.\nDimond filed a five-count Complaint against BDP and Logitrans on October 2, 2017, asserting\nclaims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraudulent non-disclosure; (3) intentional fraud;\n(4) breach of agreement, failure to perform and illegality of contract; and (5) unjust enrichment.\n\n II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY\n\n BDP filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Dimond had failed to state a claim upon\nwhich relief could be granted because the statute of limitations on Dimond’s claims had run.\nLogitrans was served on November 27, 2017. Logitrans’s president sent Dimond’s counsel a\nletter on December 19, 2017, denying liability and responding to Dimond’s complaint. Logitrans\ndid not file a copy of the letter with the court. Dimond filed a Request for an Entry of Default\npursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) on December 29, 2017. Logitrans retained counsel and filed a\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 5\n\n\nMemorandum opposing Dimond’s Request on January 3, 2018. The district court denied\nDimond’s Request for Entry of Default and ordered Logitrans to file an amended answer.\nLogitrans then filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting the same defense that BDP used—that the\nstatute of limitations had run.\n\n The district court granted the Motions to Dismiss. It explained that, because bills of\nlading are “maritime contracts, governed by federal maritime law[,]” COGSA governed\nDimond’s claims. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 952–53. Because COGSA has a one-\nyear statute of limitations for cargo claims in contract or tort that begins to run after the goods\nhave been delivered, or on the date the goods should have been delivered, the district court\nconcluded that Dimond should have filed its claims in May 2013, one year after the goods were\nreleased to Dimond’s customer. Because it did not, the district court concluded that Dimond’s\nclaims were outside the statute of limitations. Id. at 953. In reaching this conclusion, the district\ncourt substantially relied on Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC, No.\n1:13-cv-01329, 2014 WL 4809427 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2014), a related case in which the same\ndistrict court (albeit by a different judge) had already determined that, through the Bill of Lading,\nCOGSA governed the shipment of the Equipment, and the Himalaya Clause extended COGSA to\nindependent contractors. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 950. The district court also\nrejected Dimond’s arguments that BDP and Logitrans should be estopped from benefiting from\nCOGSA’s one-year statute of limitations because they allegedly did not comply with certain\nlicensing requirements. The district court explained that, because COGSA does not include\nlicensure requirements, Dimond failed to sufficiently allege that BDP and Logitrans were in\nviolation of COGSA. Id. at 953–54.\n\n Dimond appealed the district court’s order granting the Motions to Dismiss. It also\nasserts that the district court should have entered a default against Logitrans.\n\n III. ANALYSIS\n\n A. Standard of Review\n\n We review a district court’s dismissal of claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) de\nnovo. Marks v. Newcourt Credit Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 451 (6th Cir. 2003). In reviewing the\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 6\n\n\nmotion, the court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true, construed in the light\nmost favorable to the plaintiff. See Hall v. Callahan, 727 F.3d 450, 453 (6th Cir. 2013).\n“Dismissal of a complaint because it is barred by the statute of limitations is proper when ‘the\nstatement of the claim affirmatively shows that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would\nentitle him to relief.’” Gibson v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 943, 946 (6th Cir. 2002)\n(emphasis in original) (quoting Duncan v. Leeds, 742 F.2d 989, 991 (6th Cir. 1984)).\n\n B. COGSA\n\n The primary issues in this case are whether COGSA controls, and whether BDP and\nLogitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of COGSA. If so, then Dimond should have filed its\nclaim within one year after delivery, or the date when the goods should have been delivered.6\nSee 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)). The Equipment arrived in China on March 21, 2012 and\nwas released to Dimond’s customer on May 17, 2012. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953.\nAccordingly, if COGSA applies, Dimond should have filed its claims against BDP and Logitrans\nby May 17, 2013, ibid.; 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)), and the district court correctly granted\nAppellees’ Motions to Dismiss.\n\n 1. Does COGSA Control the Bill of Lading?\n\n Dimond argues that this is not a maritime dispute, but instead is about “breaches of\ncontractual agreements, breaches of fiduciary duties, and outright fraud,” which do not create\nmaritime jurisdiction. In determining whether this is a maritime dispute, the “answer ‘depends\nupon . . . the nature and character of the contract’ and the true criterion is whether it has\n‘reference to maritime service or maritime transactions.’” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S.\n14, 24 (2004) (quoting North Pac. S.S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co.,\n249 U.S. 119, 125 (1919)). This case arises from a contract to transport used manufacturing\nequipment by sea from the United States to China. It is plainly a maritime transaction.\n\n\n\n 6Dimond argues that it “was not a party to the contract of carriage with the ship/carrier directly, or via any\nauthorized agent . . . .” The district court rejected this argument because Dimond is listed as a party on the bill of\nlading. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC v. BDP Int’l, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 3d 947, 952 n.1 (N.D. Ohio 2018). Dimond\nsigned the Bill of Lading. We agree with the district court.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 7\n\n\nDimond’s argument is without basis. “When a contract is a maritime one, and the dispute is not\ninherently local, federal law controls the contract interpretation.” Id. at 22–23.\n\n Dimond points out that the Bill of Lading and Rider contain multiple choice-of-law\noptions, including Hague-Visby,7 COGSA, and English law. Dimond does not, however, argue\nthat we should apply Hague-Visby or English law, or submit the matter to arbitration in London.\nInstead, Dimond suggests that these options render the Bill of Lading ambiguous and\nunenforceable.8 Dimond maintains that the true reason COGSA does not apply is because BDP\nand Logitrans were not in compliance with federal statutes and regulations concerning shipping,\nand therefore the court should apply Ohio law to assess whether Dimond’s claims were timely\nfiled. BDP and Logitrans argue that the Bill of Lading, coupled with Dimond’s allegations,\ndemonstrate that COGSA does apply, and urge us to affirm the district court’s ruling. Even\nassuming that COGSA does not apply, BDP and Logitrans maintain that Dimond’s claims are\nnot timely under the applicable state statutes of limitations.\n\n COGSA applies “to all contracts for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the\nUnited States in foreign trade.” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13); see Fortis Corp. Ins., S.A. v.\nViken Ship Mgmt. AS, 597 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir. 2010). “[E]very bill of lading or similar\ndocument of title which is evidence of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea from ports of\nthe United States, in foreign trade, shall contain a statement that it shall have effect subject to the\nprovisions of this [Act].” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13).\n\n United States courts must apply COGSA if the statute so requires. See Acciai Speciali\nTerni USA v. M/V BERANE, 182 F. Supp. 2d 503, 506 (D. Md. 2002) (“United States courts\n\n 7Hague-Visby refers to the 1924 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law\nRelating to Bills of Lading, which was subsequently modified by the Hague-Visby Amendments of 1968. See Royal\nIns. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2008).\n 8Dimond also suggests that an amended bill of lading, issued when the Gisele Scan stopped in Denmark,\nthat covers the remainder of the shipment from Denmark to China supersedes the Bill of Lading. We considered a\nrelated question in Royal Ins. Co., 525 F.3d at 418–20. There we held that an “intermediary stop” pursuant to a\nmaritime contract that uses multiple modes of transportation with an ultimate destination in the United States does\nnot “prevent the application of COGSA liability rules as a matter of federal common law.” Id. at 420. Under Royal\nIns. Co., we conclude that the stop in Denmark, even one that resulted in an amended Bill of Lading (Dimond\nasserts that this was due to damage to the cargo from a storm), does not bar the application of COGSA because this\nis a contract for carriage of goods by sea from a port of the United States. See 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13).\nFurther, the Denmark Bill of Lading includes an identical COGSA clause to the original Bill of Lading.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 8\n\n\nmust apply COGSA, when its terms so require, regardless [of] where bills of lading were issued\nor whence carriage began.”); Farrell Lines Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly Corp., 32 F. Supp. 2d\n118, 128 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“Courts must apply COGSA, when its terms so require, no matter\nwhere the bill of lading was issued.”). By the statute’s own terms, COGSA applies to contracts\nof carriage9 of goods to or from United States ports in foreign trade. See 46 U.S.C. § 30701\n(Notes § 13) (“[COGSA] shall apply to all contracts for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports\nof the United States in foreign trade.”); Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line\nLtd., 525 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2008) (listing cases). Because the Bill of Lading is a contract to\ntransport goods in foreign trade from a United States port (Cleveland) to a foreign port (China),\nCOGSA applies.10\n\n 2. Are BDP and Logitrans Carriers?\n\n The question remains whether BDP and Logitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of\nCOGSA, and so may fairly invoke its one-year statute of limitations. The Bill of Lading lists\nLogitrans as the carrier. Dimond acknowledges this, then reiterates that COGSA cannot apply\n\n\n 9Under COGSA:\n The term “contract of carriage” applies only to contracts of carriage covered by\n a bill of lading or any similar document of title, insofar as such document relates\n to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar\n document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the\n moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the\n relations between a carrier and a holder of the same.\n46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 1(b)).\n 10Dimond asserts that we must attempt to “determine what law—maritime or state or federal common\nlaw—governs the various stages of sea and overland portions of the intermodal transport.” The district court\nconcluded that Dimond made separate arrangements to transport the Equipment from its plant to Cleveland, and that\nthe Chinese customer was responsible for transport from the port of arrival, Xingang, to wherever it needed to go.\nSee Dimond Rigging Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d at 952–53. Dimond’s Complaint asserts that it hired BDP to handle\nshipping the Equipment to China. Dimond’s brief states that it moved the Equipment to Cleveland by truck and rail\nand notified BDP that it was doing so.\n Even if Dimond were to have made arrangements with BDP to cover the overland transportation, we\nobserve that in Kirby, 543 U.S. at 27, the Supreme Court resolved the question of how federal courts must determine\nwhether a contract for maritime and land transport is a maritime contract. The Court explained that “so long as a bill\nof lading requires substantial carriage of goods by sea, its purpose is to effectuate maritime commerce—and thus it\nis a maritime contract.” Ibid. Even if it provides for some overland transport, it is still a maritime contract as long\nas the case is not inherently local. Ibid. The Bill of Lading requires transport from the port of Cleveland to\nXingang. It does not refer to any other ground transportation. We have already concluded that, contrary to\nDimond’s assertions, this is obviously a maritime dispute.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 9\n\n\nbecause it was a non-party to the contract (that it signed) and BDP and Logitrans “are not agents\nof the vessel or the carrier.” Dimond asserts that this is not a suit “between Dimond and the\nactual carrier,” the Gisele Scan, but “between Dimond and two companies that represented\nthemselves as licensed carriers.” Dimond insists that because Logitrans and BDP are not in\ncompliance with various maritime licensing statutes and regulations, they cannot be carriers. 11\n\n BDP argues that because Dimond characterized it as a carrier, freight forwarder, or\nNVOCC in the Complaint, assuming all allegations are true, it is covered by the COGSA statute\nof limitations. BDP asserts that COGSA applies “even where a party’s role is uncertain, based\non how the parties to a contract of carriage represent themselves or are viewed by the other\nparties to the contract.” The cases BDP cites for this proposition are not authoritative: one is\nunpublished, and all are from district courts that are not within this circuit. Logitrans maintains\nthat because it was the Carrier on the Bill of Lading, and based on its role, it was a “carrier”\nwithin the meaning of COGSA. Both BDP and Logitrans assert that, in any event, the statute of\nlimitations applies through the Himalaya Clause.\n\n The district court observed that Federal Marine Terminals, 2014 WL 4809427, at *3, had\nfound that the Bill of Lading’s Himalaya Clause included contractors who were not even listed\non the Bill of Lading. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953. Applying this reasoning, the\ndistrict court concluded that, “regardless of their specific roles in the transaction,” both Logitrans\nand BDP were subject to COGSA. Ibid. It did not make any findings regarding whether BDP\nand Logitrans were “carriers.” Ibid. The problem with this approach is that it ignored the fact\nthat COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations does not apply to every party in the transaction.\nSpecifically: “[T]he carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or\ndamage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the\ngoods should have been delivered[.]” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)) (emphasis added).\nParties may extend COGSA by “adding provisions to bills of lading extending the COGSA\n\n\n 11Dimond insists that “the carrier clearly states that Dimond is NOT and was not the shipper in this case.”\nIt supports this proposition by citing the Denmark Bill of Lading, which expressly identifies Dimond (there d/b/a as\nAbsolute Rigging and Millwrights, see supra note 3), as the shipper. The other Bill of Lading, which identifies\nDimond as the “Merchant,” states that that term includes shippers. See supra note 4. We fail to understand how\nDimond can squarely make this argument in light of the evidence it cites.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 10\n\n\nregime to any and all agents or independent contractors who participate in the shipment of goods\nunder a particular contract.” Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 792 (citing Kirby, 543 U.S. at 30–31). In\nother words, COGSA permits the use of Himalaya Clauses to limit parties’ liability. Ibid. But\nmerely because a Bill of Lading contains a Himalaya Clause does not mean that the Clause\ncovers every entity or individual involved in a transaction.\n\n We first consider whether Logitrans and BDP are carriers within the meaning of COGSA.\nSee Sabah Shipyard v. M/V Harbel Tapper, 178 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that\nCOGSA liability limits only apply to carriers); Shonac Corp. v. Maersk, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d\n1020, 1025 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (discussing carriers). A “carrier” under COGSA means “the\nowner, manager, charterer, agent, or master of a vessel.” 46 U.S.C. § 30701; see also id. (Notes\n§ 1(a)) (“The term ‘carrier’ includes the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of\ncarriage with a shipper.”). “COGSA provides that ‘carriers’ are subject to certain statutory\n‘responsibilities and liabilities,’ and in turn they are provided with certain ‘rights and\nimmunities,’ such as [a] one-year statute of limitations . . . .” Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 787. An\nNVOCC, as noted, supra, consolidates cargo from various shippers and issues a bill of lading.\nPrima U.S. Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 223 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (explaining that NVOCCs\nare carriers under COGSA). A freight forwarder12 “facilitates the movement of cargo to the\nocean vessel.” Ibid. “Freight forwarders generally make arrangements for the movement of\ncargo at the request of clients . . . . a freight forwarder does not issue a bill of lading, and is\ntherefore not liable to a shipper for anything that occurs to the goods being shipped.” Ibid.\n(emphasis in original) (citing United States v. Am. Union Trans., 327 U.S. 437, 442–43 (1946)).\n\n In Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 789, we considered whether a ship’s manager was a carrier\nunder COGSA. We focused on the plain language of COGSA in concluding that the manager\nwas not a carrier. Id. at 789–92. See also Shonac Corp., 159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026 (discussing the\n“plain language” approach for assessing whether a party is a carrier). Under this approach, a\n\n\n\n\n 12BDP asserts in its brief that it “was and is a licensed NVOCC.” The record contains a copy of BDP’s\nOcean Transportation Intermediary (“OTI”) License. The License states that BDP is authorized to provide freight-\nforwarding services.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 11\n\n\ncourt considers whether a party satisfies the statutory definition.13 See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d\nat 405. This is an assessment of function, rather than form. Prima U.S. Inc., 223 F.3d at 130 n.1\n(explaining that a party calling itself a freight forwarder that performed carrier functions would\nbe a carrier). The key inquiry is what the party did. If it issued a bill of lading, then it is usually\na “carrier” under COGSA. See id. at 129; Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp.,\n159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026. It is not dispositive that the party hired a third party to actually carry\nthe goods. See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp., 159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026.\n\n We turn to the Complaint and the Bill of Lading. Because this is an appeal from a\nMotion to Dismiss, we must construe Dimond’s factual allegations as true. See Hall, 727 F.3d at\n453. Dimond alleged that BDP represented that BDP would handle all aspects of the shipment\nincluding, inter alia, providing a ship, dispatching the shipments, handling export documents,\nand preparing bills of lading. Dimond asserted that BDP had “subcontracted its shipping/freight\nforwarding services/obligations” to Logitrans. BDP apparently obtained one ship for Dimond\nand provided a booking note, but the first ship became unavailable. BDP also allegedly made all\nthe arrangements for the stevedores to load the ship. Dimond alleges that after the original ship\nwas no longer available, BDP notified it that Logitrans would be involved in shipping the\nEquipment, and that BDP and Logitrans ultimately selected the Gisele Scan. BDP issued the Bill\nof Lading, which identified Logitrans as the “carrier” to Dimond.\n\n Assuming Dimond’s allegations about Appellees’ roles are true, BDP appears to have\nengaged in some freight-forwarding services, such as securing the ship, handling export\ndocuments, and making arrangements for stevedores to load the Equipment. See Prima U.S.\nInc., 223 F.3d at 129. BDP was not responsible for transporting the Equipment to the Port of\nCleveland—Dimond asserts that it handled that. BDP, however, issued the Bill of Lading, which\nis a service provided by a carrier. Ibid.; Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp., 159 F.\n\n\n 13In Shonac Corp. v. Maersk, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1026 (S.D. Ohio 2001), the district court\nidentified a second approach, set forth in Zima Corp. v. M.V. Roman Pazinski, 493 F. Supp. 268, 273 (S.D.N.Y.\n1980). Under this approach, a party may be determined to be a carrier through a four-factor test: (1) how the party’s\nobligation is expressed in documents pertaining to the agreement; (2) the history of dealings between the parties;\n(3) whether the party issued a bill of lading; and (4) how the party charged the shipper. Ibid.; see also Sabah\nShipyard v. M/V Harbel Tapper, 178 F.3d 400, 405 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999). In Fortis Corp. Ins., S.A. v. Viken Ship\nMgmt. AS, 597 F.3d 784, 789 (6th Cir. 2010), we focused on the language of the statute instead of a multi-factor test.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 12\n\n\nSupp. 2d at 1026. Logitrans was also involved in securing the ship. It is listed as the “carrier”\non the Bill of Lading. Dimond also refers to Logitrans as the “carrier” in its briefs.\n\n Sabah Shipyard is illustrative in resolving whether BDP and Logitrans are “carriers”\nunder COGSA. In that case, Sabah had to ship some equipment to Malaysia. 178 F.3d at 403.\nIMB won the bid to transport the equipment. IMB’s agent, Intermarine, issued a bill of lading.\nAfter some of the equipment slid into the Singapore harbor, Sabah filed suit seeking damages\nunder COGSA. The district court found that the defendants were liable for negligence but did\nnot apply a COGSA limit on liability because it held that IMB and Intermarine were forwarders,\nnot carriers. Ibid. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court erred when it determined\nthat IMB and Intermarine were not carriers within the meaning of COGSA. Id. at 406. The Fifth\nCircuit explained that “[t]o determine whether a party is a COGSA carrier, we have followed\nCOGSA’s plain language, focusing on whether the party entered into a contract of carriage with\na shipper.” Id. at 405. Because IMB and Intermarine entered into a contract of carriage—\nnamely, they “agreed to carry Sabah’s goods by sea, and they issued a bill of lading[,]” they were\ncarriers. Ibid.\n\n BDP entered into a contract of carriage with Dimond because it took on the responsibility\nof transporting the Equipment by sea. BDP issued the Bill of Lading. Dimond Rigging, 320 F.\nSupp. 3d at 949. BDP is a carrier. See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Bunge Edible Oil Corp.\nv. M/Vs Torm Rask & Fort Steele, 949 F.2d 786, 788–89 (5th Cir. 1992) (explaining that\ncharterer of vessel who enters into contract of carriage with shipper is a carrier); Nitram, Inc. v.\nCretan Life, 599 F.2d 1359, 1370 (5th Cir. 1979) (concluding that party that entered into a\ncontract of carriage covered by a bill of lading is a carrier within COGSA’s definition).\nLogitrans also entered into a contract of carriage with Dimond. It signed the Bill of Lading and\nis identified as the “carrier.” Accordingly, Logitrans is also a carrier. See Bunge Edible Oil\nCorp., 949 F.2d at 788; Nitram, Inc., 599 F.2d at 1370. Because we conclude that BDP and\nLogitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of COGSA, there is no need to address the Himalaya\nClause.\n\n Dimond argues that equitable estoppel should bar BDP and Logitrans from benefiting\nfrom COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations because BDP and Logitrans were not in\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 13\n\n\ncompliance with COGSA. Dimond maintains that we should apply equitable estoppel to “refuse\nto validate Defendant’s wrongful conduct in this case through a Motion to Dismiss on limitations\ngrounds arising from a statute with which they did not comply.” Dimond offers a list of various\nfederal shipping laws and regulations that it asserts BDP and Logitrans have violated and argues\nthat because they misrepresented their status as licensed entities, they should not be allowed to\nuse COGSA as a defense. Dimond has not identified any portion of COGSA that the Appellees\nhave allegedly not complied with.\n\n The district court ruled that there was no basis to apply equitable estoppel because\nCOGSA does not include licensure provisions. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953–54. To\nbe sure, COGSA does not supersede rights and obligations set forth in other federal statutes. See\n46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes §§ 8, 12). COGSA establishes “particularized duties and obligations\nupon, and grants stated immunities” to carriers. Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Mach. Corp.,\n359 U.S. 297, 301 (1959). We explained in Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 789, that COGSA “was\ndrafted to address the belief that carriers used their superior bargaining power against shippers\nwhen contracting for the carriage of goods, and could often dictate the terms of bills of lading to\nexempt themselves from any liability.” Nonetheless, the district court was quite correct that\nCOGSA does not concern itself with licensing.\n\n Dimond’s complaint does not allege that BDP and Logitrans represented that they were\nin compliance with COGSA. For Dimond to estop BDP and Logitrans from using COGSA as a\ndefense, it would have to show that it detrimentally relied on such representations. See Thomas\nv. Miller, 489 F.3d 293, 302 (2007) (setting out elements of equitable estoppel); see also Oxford\nShipping Co., Ltd. v. N.H. Trading Corp., 697 F.2d 1, 3–4 (1st Cir. 1982) (equitable estoppel\nclaim under COGSA). It has not done so.\n\n Dimond also maintains that the Bill of Lading is an illegal contract because, as\nunlicensed entities, BDP and Logitrans could not issue an enforceable Bill of Lading, although\nDimond suggests that BDP might be a licensed freight forwarder. BDP and Logitrans dispute\nthe accuracy of Dimond’s licensing arguments. BDP asserts that the record below shows that it\nhas been a licensed Ocean Transport Intermediary under the Federal Maritime Commission\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 14\n\n\n(“FMC”) since 1999.14 Logitrans maintains that it is not required to have a license because it is a\n“vessel/cargo/charter broker.” Appellees also insist that licensure is irrelevant to the application\nof COGSA and the lack of a license does not void a contract. As noted above, the district court\nonly ruled that COGSA does not contain licensing requirements. It did not take judicial notice of\nBDP’s license or make any findings on that issue.\n\n Dimond points to FMC regulations concerning licensing, particularly 46 C.F.R. § 515.3,\nwhich provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this part, no person in the United States may\nact as an ocean transport intermediary unless that person holds a valid license issued by the\nCommission.” Dimond insists that FMC regulations, specifically id. § 515.2(h)(5) and (k)(4),\nprohibit an unlicensed person (Logitrans) or a licensed freight-forwarder (BDP) from issuing a\nlegally-enforceable bill of lading. Subsection (h) in that regulation defines “[f]reight forwarding\nservices,” which “refers to the dispatching of shipments on behalf of others” to facilitate\nshipments by a common carrier, “which may include, but are not limited to . . . [p]reparing\nand/or processing common carrier bills of lading or other shipping documents.” Id.\n§ 515.2(h)(5). Subsection (k)(4) states that NVOCC services “may include . . . [i]ssuing bills of\nlading or other shipping documents.” Id. (k)(4). This definitional regulation may identify what\ncertain services within the regulations are or include, but it does not contain any language\nestablishing, as Dimond argues, that BDP could not issue a legally-enforceable bill of lading.\n\n Assuming, for the sake of argument, that an unlicensed entity issued the Bill of Lading,\nwe briefly consider whether an unlicensed entity may make a valid contract. The parties dispute\nwhether Adams Express Co. v. Darden, 286 F. 61 (6th Cir. 1923), supports the argument that an\nunlicensed entity may create a valid and enforceable contact. In Adams Express, the shipper\narranged for a carrier to transport six horses. In violation of the Interstate Commerce Act, the\ncarrier misrepresented the horses’ value to pay lower tariff rates. Id. at 62–63. The carrier was\nnegligent and the car containing the horses wrecked, killing five horses. The shipper sued and\nwas awarded the value of the horses. The carrier appealed, arguing that because it had violated\nthe Act, the shipping contract was void. Id. at 63. We explained that whether the contract was\nvoid and unenforceable depended on the public policy of the United States. Id. at 65. The\n 14Dimond argues that BDP only obtained a license in 2013, after the events at issue.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 15\n\n\nstatute penalized the carrier’s practices (and would have penalized the shipper as well), but it\n“never declared the contract of carriage unenforceable . . . .” Ibid. We offered the following\nanalysis: “[W]hen a statute imposes specific penalties for its violation, where the act is not\nmalum in se, and the purpose of the statute can be accomplished without declaring contracts in\nviolation thereof illegal, the inference is that it was not the legislative intent to render such\ncontracts illegal and unenforceable.” Ibid. Applying this principle, we concluded that “Congress\npresumably believed” that it was better to permit suit to hold a carrier liable for the value of the\nitems destroyed by its negligence, even if the carrier had violated the Act and was subject to the\npenalties. Ibid.\n\n Dimond argues that Adams Express cannot apply because there are no penalties in the\nShipping Act for operating without a license and operating without a license is malum in se.15\nAs to the first point, whatever the Act may say, FMC regulations pursuant to the Act do, in fact,\nimpose civil penalties for operating without a license. See 46 C.F.R. § 515.1(b) (civil penalty\nthat does not exceed $9,000 per violation, unless said violation was knowing or willful, in which\ncase penalty may not exceed $45,000 per violation). Dimond’s insistence that only licensed\nentities may operate is further undermined by FMC regulations that permit operations without a\nlicense. See, e.g., id. § 515.4(c) (common carriers or their agents may perform freight-\nforwarding services without a license with respect to cargo carried under carrier’s own bill of\nlading).\n\n The FMC regulatory scheme surrounding licensing emphasizes experience and character,\nbut also financial dependability, and compliance with other federal statutes and regulations. See\nid. § 515.11. The bond requirements ensure that claims against an OTI may be adequately\ncompensated in the event that a complaint is filed with the FMC—although this is not the sole\nremedy. See id. § 515.23. It does not appear that the purpose of these regulations may only be\naccomplished by voiding a bill of lading issued by an unlicensed party in violation of the\n\n\n\n 15Operating without a license is an act that is purely prohibited by statute, rather than inherently wrong in\nand of itself. Compare malum in se, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) (“A crime or act that is inherently\nimmoral, such as murder, arson, or rape.”), with malum prohibitum, id. (“An act that is a crime merely because it is\nprohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral.”).\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 16\n\n\nregulations. As Dimond has not offered any authority within the Shipping Act or its regulations\nthat states that such a bill of lading is unenforceable, we reject these arguments.\n\n The Bill of Lading is a contract of carriage, subject to COGSA. BDP and Logitrans are\ncarriers as the term is defined in COGSA. We reject Dimond’s arguments that the Appellees\nshould be estopped from using the one-year statute of limitations as a defense, and that BDP\ncould not issue a legally enforceable Bill of Lading. Accordingly, we do not need to address\nwhether state statutes of limitations would bar Dimond’s action even if COGSA did not apply.\nThe district court did not err in concluding that COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations barred\nDimond’s suits.\n\n C. Default\n\n Dimond asserts that the district court should have entered a default against Logitrans\nbecause it did not answer Dimond’s Complaint. Within the time permitted to respond,\nLogitrans’s President sent Dimond a letter that answered the gist of the Complaint. Logitrans,\nhowever, failed to file any responsive pleading with the court. After Dimond asked the district\ncourt to enter a default on December 29, 2017, Logitrans filed a memorandum opposing the\nentry of default on January 3, 2018. The district court denied Dimond’s request for default and\nordered Logitrans to file an amended answer by January 16. Logitrans filed its motion to dismiss\nby the deadline.\n\n An order that denies a motion for a default is not immediately appealable. McNutt v.\nCardox Corp., 329 F.2d 107, 108 (6th Cir. 1964). Dimond appealed from the final judgment of\nthe district court, which would include all prior interlocutory orders and rulings that were not\nreviewable until the final judgment. See Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick &\nGMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 993 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A]n appeal from a final judgment\ngenerally brings up all prior interlocutory orders and rulings that were not reviewable until the\nentry of a final judgment.”). The district court dismissed Dimond’s case, and therefore the denial\nof the motion of default is reviewable along with the order of dismissal. Because Dimond has\nappealed from the entry of a final judgment, the court has jurisdiction over this issue on appeal.\nIbid.\n\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 17\n\n\n Logitrans argues that Dimond has waived this issue on appeal because it did not identify\nthis issue in the “issues presented for review” section of its brief.16 Federal Rule of Appellate\nProcedure 28(a)(5) states that the appellant’s brief “must contain . . . a statement of the issues\npresented for review . . . .” (Emphasis added). Applying this rule, we have concluded that when\nan appellant does not comply by listing all the issues presented for review in the statement of\nissues, the appellant waives that argument. See United States v. Calvetti, 836 F.3d 654, 664 (6th\nCir. 2016); United States v. Honeycutt, 816 F.3d 362, 370 (6th Cir. 2016), rev’d on other\ngrounds by 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017); Barrett v. Detroit Heading, LLC, 311 F. App’x 779, 796 (6th\nCir. 2009). Because Dimond did not include its claim that the district court should have granted\nit a default against Logitrans in its statement of issues, it is waived.\n\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\n\n\n\n\n 16Dimond offers no response to this argument in its Reply Brief.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BDP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Logitrans International, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-25\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0011p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, ┐\\n Plaintiff-Appellant, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-3615\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n BDP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; LOGITRANS INTERNATIONAL, │\\n LLC, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:17-cv-02054—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 25, 2019\\n\\n Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Duncan H. Brown, LAW OFFICES OF DUNCAN H. BROWN, Northville,\\nMichigan, for Appellant. Troy B. Morris, PEREZ & MORRIS LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for\\nAppellee BDP International. Eric W. Beery, BEERY & SPURLOCK CO., L.P.A., Columbus,\\nOhio, for Appellee Logitrans.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Appellant Dimond Rigging Company, LLC (“Dimond”),\\nappeals from a district-court judgment dismissing its suit against Appellees BDP International,\\nInc. (“BDP”) and Logitrans International, LLC (“Logitrans”) because Dimond’s suit was not\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\ntimely filed within the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Carriage of Goods by Sea\\nAct (“COGSA”). We affirm the district court’s judgment.\\n\\n I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\\n\\n Dimond was hired by a Chinese auto manufacturer to “rig, dismantle, wash, and pack,”\\nand ultimately ship several tons of used automotive assembly-line equipment to China (the\\n“Equipment”). Dimond lacked experience in international shipment. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC\\nv. BDP Int’l, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 3d 947, 948 (N.D. Ohio 2018). Dimond alleged that it received\\nan “unsolicited call” from BDP offering to “assume and perform . . . each and every aspect of the\\nshipment.” Ibid. Dimond hired BDP to ship the Equipment. Dimond asserted that BDP did not\\ndisclose that it was not a licensed Ocean Transport Intermediary (“OTI”) by the Federal\\nMaritime Commission. Ibid.\\n\\n In May 2011, BDP informed Dimond that it had obtained a ship and sent a booking note\\nto Dimond that included proposed terms and conditions of the shipment. At that time, the\\nEquipment had not been completely dismantled and weighed. Id. at 948–49. Between May and\\nOctober 2011, Dimond completed these tasks and prepared a “preliminary and estimated packing\\nlist” for BDP. BDP allegedly provided the preliminary packing list when it obtained quotes from\\nthird-party contractors who would load the Equipment. Id. at 949.\\n\\n In October 2011, BDP notified Dimond that the first ship it had booked was no longer\\navailable. Dimond asserted that BDP had “without Dimond’s knowledge, consent or approval”\\nhired Logitrans to “perform some, or all of BDP’s freight forwarding duties including\\nlocating/booking or providing a ship; acting in the capacity as the NVOCC carrier for the\\nshipment . . . and negotiating loading services . . . .” Dimond alleged that BDP misrepresented\\nthat Logitrans was a Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier1 (“NVOCC”).\\n\\n BDP and Logitrans hired the Gisele Scan, operated by Scan-Trans, Inc. (“Scan-Trans”),\\nto transport the Equipment from the Port of Cleveland to Xingang, China. BDP prepared a new\\n\\n\\n 1A non-vessel operating common carrier “consolidate[s] cargo from numerous shippers into larger groups\\nfor shipment by an ocean carrier.” Prima U.S. Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 223 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2000). The\\nNVOCC, rather than the ship that transports the cargo, “issues a bill of lading to each shipper.” Ibid.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\nBooking Note and Bill of Lading for the transportation of the Equipment aboard the Gisele\\nScan.2 Dimond Rigging Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d at 949. The Booking Note identified Dimond3 as\\nthe Merchant,4 Logitrans as the Carrier, Scan-Trans as the Agent-Shipbrokers, and BDP as the\\nMerchant’s Representative. Ibid.\\n\\n The Booking Note incorporated the Bill of Lading. The following terms in the Bill of\\nLading are of particular relevance.\\n\\n (a) In case the Contract evidenced by this Bill of Lading is subject to the Carriage\\n of Goods by Sea Act of the United States of America, 1936 (“U.S. COGSA”),\\n then the provisions stated in said Act shall govern before loading and after\\n discharge and throughout the entire time the cargo is in the Carrier’s custody and\\n in which event freight shall be payable on the cargo coming into the Carrier’s\\n custody.\\n\\nThe Bill of Lading also contained a “Himalaya Clause.”5\\n\\n (a) It is hereby expressly agreed that no servant or agent of the Carrier (which for\\n the purpose of this Clause includes every independent contractor from time to\\n time employed by the Carrier) shall in any circumstances whatsoever be under\\n any liability whatsoever to the Merchant under this contract of carriage for any\\n loss, damage or delay of whatsoever kind arising or resulting directly or indirectly\\n from any act, neglect or default on his part while acting in the course of or in\\n connection with his employment.\\n\\n\\n\\n 2A bill of lading is a contract for the transportation of goods. It “records that a carrier has received goods\\nfrom the party that wishes to ship them, states the terms of carriage, and serves as evidence of the contract for\\ncarriage.” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S. 14, 18–19 (2004).\\n 3The Bill of Lading lists “Absolute Rigging and Millwrights” as the Merchant. Dimond appears in various\\ncases as Dimond Rigging Company, LLC d/b/a Absolute Rigging and Millwrights. See Federal Marine Terminals,\\nInc. v. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC, No. 1:13-cv-01329, 2014 WL 4809427 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2014).\\n 4The Bill of Lading defines “Merchant” to include “the charterer, shipper, the receiver, the consignor, the\\nconsignee, the holder of the Bill of Lading, the owner of the cargo and any person entitled to possession of the\\ncargo.”\\n 5A “Himalaya Clause” is a clause that imposes liability limitations. See Kirby, 543 U.S. at 20 & n.2. The\\nname originates from an English case, Adler v. Dickinson (The Himalaya), [1955] 1 Q.B. 158, [1954] 2 Lloyd’s List\\nL. Rep. 267, in which personal-injury claims were brought against the master and boatswain of the Himalaya. The\\nHimalaya’s owners had included “customary exculpatory clauses” protecting them from liability for negligent injury\\nto passengers. See Joseph C. Sweeney, Crossing the Himalayas: Exculpatory Clauses in Global Transport. Norfolk\\nSouthern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 385, 2004 AMC 2705 (2004), 36 J. Mar. L. & Com.\\n155, 161 (2005).\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\n (b) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions in this Clause,\\n every exemption from liability, limitation, condition and liberty herein contained\\n and every right, defence and immunity of whatsoever nature applicable to the\\n Carrier or to which the Carrier is entitled, shall also be available and shall extend\\n to protect every such servant and agent of the Carrier as aforesaid.\\n\\nBoth Logitrans and Dimond signed the Booking Note.\\n\\n Dimond alleged that it was not informed about a pre-load inspection meeting and that\\nLogitrans and BDP did not attend the meeting either. This, Dimond asserted, led to delays and\\nincreased costs, because the Gisele Scan was not able to take on all the Equipment, and the\\nstevedores would not load all the Equipment because it was not included in their quote. Dimond\\nRigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 949–50. Ultimately, the Gisele Scan departed, leaving behind\\napproximately 34 pieces of equipment. It arrived in China in March 2012.\\n\\n As a result of these shipping difficulties, Dimond became involved in multiple lawsuits,\\nincluding suits with its Chinese customer and the stevedores. Id. at 950. Dimond filed a\\nComplaint against BDP in the Northern District of Ohio on July 11, 2013, alleging Breach of\\nFiduciary Duty, Unjust Enrichment, and Fraud. Ibid. Dimond never served BDP with the\\nComplaint and, when the summons expired, the district court dismissed the Complaint without\\nprejudice. Ibid. On August 9, 2017, Dimond filed a Motion to Amend and Praecipe for Issuance\\nof Amended Summons for its 2013 suit against BDP. The district court denied the Motion.\\nDimond filed a five-count Complaint against BDP and Logitrans on October 2, 2017, asserting\\nclaims for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraudulent non-disclosure; (3) intentional fraud;\\n(4) breach of agreement, failure to perform and illegality of contract; and (5) unjust enrichment.\\n\\n II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY\\n\\n BDP filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Dimond had failed to state a claim upon\\nwhich relief could be granted because the statute of limitations on Dimond’s claims had run.\\nLogitrans was served on November 27, 2017. Logitrans’s president sent Dimond’s counsel a\\nletter on December 19, 2017, denying liability and responding to Dimond’s complaint. Logitrans\\ndid not file a copy of the letter with the court. Dimond filed a Request for an Entry of Default\\npursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) on December 29, 2017. Logitrans retained counsel and filed a\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nMemorandum opposing Dimond’s Request on January 3, 2018. The district court denied\\nDimond’s Request for Entry of Default and ordered Logitrans to file an amended answer.\\nLogitrans then filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting the same defense that BDP used—that the\\nstatute of limitations had run.\\n\\n The district court granted the Motions to Dismiss. It explained that, because bills of\\nlading are “maritime contracts, governed by federal maritime law[,]” COGSA governed\\nDimond’s claims. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 952–53. Because COGSA has a one-\\nyear statute of limitations for cargo claims in contract or tort that begins to run after the goods\\nhave been delivered, or on the date the goods should have been delivered, the district court\\nconcluded that Dimond should have filed its claims in May 2013, one year after the goods were\\nreleased to Dimond’s customer. Because it did not, the district court concluded that Dimond’s\\nclaims were outside the statute of limitations. Id. at 953. In reaching this conclusion, the district\\ncourt substantially relied on Federal Marine Terminals, Inc. v. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC, No.\\n1:13-cv-01329, 2014 WL 4809427 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2014), a related case in which the same\\ndistrict court (albeit by a different judge) had already determined that, through the Bill of Lading,\\nCOGSA governed the shipment of the Equipment, and the Himalaya Clause extended COGSA to\\nindependent contractors. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 950. The district court also\\nrejected Dimond’s arguments that BDP and Logitrans should be estopped from benefiting from\\nCOGSA’s one-year statute of limitations because they allegedly did not comply with certain\\nlicensing requirements. The district court explained that, because COGSA does not include\\nlicensure requirements, Dimond failed to sufficiently allege that BDP and Logitrans were in\\nviolation of COGSA. Id. at 953–54.\\n\\n Dimond appealed the district court’s order granting the Motions to Dismiss. It also\\nasserts that the district court should have entered a default against Logitrans.\\n\\n III. ANALYSIS\\n\\n A. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review a district court’s dismissal of claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) de\\nnovo. Marks v. Newcourt Credit Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 451 (6th Cir. 2003). In reviewing the\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nmotion, the court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true, construed in the light\\nmost favorable to the plaintiff. See Hall v. Callahan, 727 F.3d 450, 453 (6th Cir. 2013).\\n“Dismissal of a complaint because it is barred by the statute of limitations is proper when ‘the\\nstatement of the claim affirmatively shows that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would\\nentitle him to relief.’” Gibson v. Am. Bankers Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 943, 946 (6th Cir. 2002)\\n(emphasis in original) (quoting Duncan v. Leeds, 742 F.2d 989, 991 (6th Cir. 1984)).\\n\\n B. COGSA\\n\\n The primary issues in this case are whether COGSA controls, and whether BDP and\\nLogitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of COGSA. If so, then Dimond should have filed its\\nclaim within one year after delivery, or the date when the goods should have been delivered.6\\nSee 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)). The Equipment arrived in China on March 21, 2012 and\\nwas released to Dimond’s customer on May 17, 2012. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953.\\nAccordingly, if COGSA applies, Dimond should have filed its claims against BDP and Logitrans\\nby May 17, 2013, ibid.; 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)), and the district court correctly granted\\nAppellees’ Motions to Dismiss.\\n\\n 1. Does COGSA Control the Bill of Lading?\\n\\n Dimond argues that this is not a maritime dispute, but instead is about “breaches of\\ncontractual agreements, breaches of fiduciary duties, and outright fraud,” which do not create\\nmaritime jurisdiction. In determining whether this is a maritime dispute, the “answer ‘depends\\nupon . . . the nature and character of the contract’ and the true criterion is whether it has\\n‘reference to maritime service or maritime transactions.’” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Kirby, 543 U.S.\\n14, 24 (2004) (quoting North Pac. S.S. Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Ry. & Shipbuilding Co.,\\n249 U.S. 119, 125 (1919)). This case arises from a contract to transport used manufacturing\\nequipment by sea from the United States to China. It is plainly a maritime transaction.\\n\\n\\n\\n 6Dimond argues that it “was not a party to the contract of carriage with the ship/carrier directly, or via any\\nauthorized agent . . . .” The district court rejected this argument because Dimond is listed as a party on the bill of\\nlading. Dimond Rigging Co., LLC v. BDP Int’l, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 3d 947, 952 n.1 (N.D. Ohio 2018). Dimond\\nsigned the Bill of Lading. We agree with the district court.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nDimond’s argument is without basis. “When a contract is a maritime one, and the dispute is not\\ninherently local, federal law controls the contract interpretation.” Id. at 22–23.\\n\\n Dimond points out that the Bill of Lading and Rider contain multiple choice-of-law\\noptions, including Hague-Visby,7 COGSA, and English law. Dimond does not, however, argue\\nthat we should apply Hague-Visby or English law, or submit the matter to arbitration in London.\\nInstead, Dimond suggests that these options render the Bill of Lading ambiguous and\\nunenforceable.8 Dimond maintains that the true reason COGSA does not apply is because BDP\\nand Logitrans were not in compliance with federal statutes and regulations concerning shipping,\\nand therefore the court should apply Ohio law to assess whether Dimond’s claims were timely\\nfiled. BDP and Logitrans argue that the Bill of Lading, coupled with Dimond’s allegations,\\ndemonstrate that COGSA does apply, and urge us to affirm the district court’s ruling. Even\\nassuming that COGSA does not apply, BDP and Logitrans maintain that Dimond’s claims are\\nnot timely under the applicable state statutes of limitations.\\n\\n COGSA applies “to all contracts for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the\\nUnited States in foreign trade.” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13); see Fortis Corp. Ins., S.A. v.\\nViken Ship Mgmt. AS, 597 F.3d 784, 787 (6th Cir. 2010). “[E]very bill of lading or similar\\ndocument of title which is evidence of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea from ports of\\nthe United States, in foreign trade, shall contain a statement that it shall have effect subject to the\\nprovisions of this [Act].” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13).\\n\\n United States courts must apply COGSA if the statute so requires. See Acciai Speciali\\nTerni USA v. M/V BERANE, 182 F. Supp. 2d 503, 506 (D. Md. 2002) (“United States courts\\n\\n 7Hague-Visby refers to the 1924 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law\\nRelating to Bills of Lading, which was subsequently modified by the Hague-Visby Amendments of 1968. See Royal\\nIns. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd., 525 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2008).\\n 8Dimond also suggests that an amended bill of lading, issued when the Gisele Scan stopped in Denmark,\\nthat covers the remainder of the shipment from Denmark to China supersedes the Bill of Lading. We considered a\\nrelated question in Royal Ins. Co., 525 F.3d at 418–20. There we held that an “intermediary stop” pursuant to a\\nmaritime contract that uses multiple modes of transportation with an ultimate destination in the United States does\\nnot “prevent the application of COGSA liability rules as a matter of federal common law.” Id. at 420. Under Royal\\nIns. Co., we conclude that the stop in Denmark, even one that resulted in an amended Bill of Lading (Dimond\\nasserts that this was due to damage to the cargo from a storm), does not bar the application of COGSA because this\\nis a contract for carriage of goods by sea from a port of the United States. See 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 13).\\nFurther, the Denmark Bill of Lading includes an identical COGSA clause to the original Bill of Lading.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nmust apply COGSA, when its terms so require, regardless [of] where bills of lading were issued\\nor whence carriage began.”); Farrell Lines Inc. v. Columbus Cello-Poly Corp., 32 F. Supp. 2d\\n118, 128 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“Courts must apply COGSA, when its terms so require, no matter\\nwhere the bill of lading was issued.”). By the statute’s own terms, COGSA applies to contracts\\nof carriage9 of goods to or from United States ports in foreign trade. See 46 U.S.C. § 30701\\n(Notes § 13) (“[COGSA] shall apply to all contracts for carriage of goods by sea to or from ports\\nof the United States in foreign trade.”); Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line\\nLtd., 525 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2008) (listing cases). Because the Bill of Lading is a contract to\\ntransport goods in foreign trade from a United States port (Cleveland) to a foreign port (China),\\nCOGSA applies.10\\n\\n 2. Are BDP and Logitrans Carriers?\\n\\n The question remains whether BDP and Logitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of\\nCOGSA, and so may fairly invoke its one-year statute of limitations. The Bill of Lading lists\\nLogitrans as the carrier. Dimond acknowledges this, then reiterates that COGSA cannot apply\\n\\n\\n 9Under COGSA:\\n The term “contract of carriage” applies only to contracts of carriage covered by\\n a bill of lading or any similar document of title, insofar as such document relates\\n to the carriage of goods by sea, including any bill of lading or any similar\\n document as aforesaid issued under or pursuant to a charter party from the\\n moment at which such bill of lading or similar document of title regulates the\\n relations between a carrier and a holder of the same.\\n46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 1(b)).\\n 10Dimond asserts that we must attempt to “determine what law—maritime or state or federal common\\nlaw—governs the various stages of sea and overland portions of the intermodal transport.” The district court\\nconcluded that Dimond made separate arrangements to transport the Equipment from its plant to Cleveland, and that\\nthe Chinese customer was responsible for transport from the port of arrival, Xingang, to wherever it needed to go.\\nSee Dimond Rigging Co., 320 F. Supp. 3d at 952–53. Dimond’s Complaint asserts that it hired BDP to handle\\nshipping the Equipment to China. Dimond’s brief states that it moved the Equipment to Cleveland by truck and rail\\nand notified BDP that it was doing so.\\n Even if Dimond were to have made arrangements with BDP to cover the overland transportation, we\\nobserve that in Kirby, 543 U.S. at 27, the Supreme Court resolved the question of how federal courts must determine\\nwhether a contract for maritime and land transport is a maritime contract. The Court explained that “so long as a bill\\nof lading requires substantial carriage of goods by sea, its purpose is to effectuate maritime commerce—and thus it\\nis a maritime contract.” Ibid. Even if it provides for some overland transport, it is still a maritime contract as long\\nas the case is not inherently local. Ibid. The Bill of Lading requires transport from the port of Cleveland to\\nXingang. It does not refer to any other ground transportation. We have already concluded that, contrary to\\nDimond’s assertions, this is obviously a maritime dispute.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\nbecause it was a non-party to the contract (that it signed) and BDP and Logitrans “are not agents\\nof the vessel or the carrier.” Dimond asserts that this is not a suit “between Dimond and the\\nactual carrier,” the Gisele Scan, but “between Dimond and two companies that represented\\nthemselves as licensed carriers.” Dimond insists that because Logitrans and BDP are not in\\ncompliance with various maritime licensing statutes and regulations, they cannot be carriers. 11\\n\\n BDP argues that because Dimond characterized it as a carrier, freight forwarder, or\\nNVOCC in the Complaint, assuming all allegations are true, it is covered by the COGSA statute\\nof limitations. BDP asserts that COGSA applies “even where a party’s role is uncertain, based\\non how the parties to a contract of carriage represent themselves or are viewed by the other\\nparties to the contract.” The cases BDP cites for this proposition are not authoritative: one is\\nunpublished, and all are from district courts that are not within this circuit. Logitrans maintains\\nthat because it was the Carrier on the Bill of Lading, and based on its role, it was a “carrier”\\nwithin the meaning of COGSA. Both BDP and Logitrans assert that, in any event, the statute of\\nlimitations applies through the Himalaya Clause.\\n\\n The district court observed that Federal Marine Terminals, 2014 WL 4809427, at *3, had\\nfound that the Bill of Lading’s Himalaya Clause included contractors who were not even listed\\non the Bill of Lading. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953. Applying this reasoning, the\\ndistrict court concluded that, “regardless of their specific roles in the transaction,” both Logitrans\\nand BDP were subject to COGSA. Ibid. It did not make any findings regarding whether BDP\\nand Logitrans were “carriers.” Ibid. The problem with this approach is that it ignored the fact\\nthat COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations does not apply to every party in the transaction.\\nSpecifically: “[T]he carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or\\ndamage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the\\ngoods should have been delivered[.]” 46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes § 3(6)) (emphasis added).\\nParties may extend COGSA by “adding provisions to bills of lading extending the COGSA\\n\\n\\n 11Dimond insists that “the carrier clearly states that Dimond is NOT and was not the shipper in this case.”\\nIt supports this proposition by citing the Denmark Bill of Lading, which expressly identifies Dimond (there d/b/a as\\nAbsolute Rigging and Millwrights, see supra note 3), as the shipper. The other Bill of Lading, which identifies\\nDimond as the “Merchant,” states that that term includes shippers. See supra note 4. We fail to understand how\\nDimond can squarely make this argument in light of the evidence it cites.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nregime to any and all agents or independent contractors who participate in the shipment of goods\\nunder a particular contract.” Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 792 (citing Kirby, 543 U.S. at 30–31). In\\nother words, COGSA permits the use of Himalaya Clauses to limit parties’ liability. Ibid. But\\nmerely because a Bill of Lading contains a Himalaya Clause does not mean that the Clause\\ncovers every entity or individual involved in a transaction.\\n\\n We first consider whether Logitrans and BDP are carriers within the meaning of COGSA.\\nSee Sabah Shipyard v. M/V Harbel Tapper, 178 F.3d 400, 404 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that\\nCOGSA liability limits only apply to carriers); Shonac Corp. v. Maersk, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d\\n1020, 1025 (S.D. Ohio 2001) (discussing carriers). A “carrier” under COGSA means “the\\nowner, manager, charterer, agent, or master of a vessel.” 46 U.S.C. § 30701; see also id. (Notes\\n§ 1(a)) (“The term ‘carrier’ includes the owner or the charterer who enters into a contract of\\ncarriage with a shipper.”). “COGSA provides that ‘carriers’ are subject to certain statutory\\n‘responsibilities and liabilities,’ and in turn they are provided with certain ‘rights and\\nimmunities,’ such as [a] one-year statute of limitations . . . .” Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 787. An\\nNVOCC, as noted, supra, consolidates cargo from various shippers and issues a bill of lading.\\nPrima U.S. Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 223 F.3d 126, 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (explaining that NVOCCs\\nare carriers under COGSA). A freight forwarder12 “facilitates the movement of cargo to the\\nocean vessel.” Ibid. “Freight forwarders generally make arrangements for the movement of\\ncargo at the request of clients . . . . a freight forwarder does not issue a bill of lading, and is\\ntherefore not liable to a shipper for anything that occurs to the goods being shipped.” Ibid.\\n(emphasis in original) (citing United States v. Am. Union Trans., 327 U.S. 437, 442–43 (1946)).\\n\\n In Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 789, we considered whether a ship’s manager was a carrier\\nunder COGSA. We focused on the plain language of COGSA in concluding that the manager\\nwas not a carrier. Id. at 789–92. See also Shonac Corp., 159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026 (discussing the\\n“plain language” approach for assessing whether a party is a carrier). Under this approach, a\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 12BDP asserts in its brief that it “was and is a licensed NVOCC.” The record contains a copy of BDP’s\\nOcean Transportation Intermediary (“OTI”) License. The License states that BDP is authorized to provide freight-\\nforwarding services.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\ncourt considers whether a party satisfies the statutory definition.13 See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d\\nat 405. This is an assessment of function, rather than form. Prima U.S. Inc., 223 F.3d at 130 n.1\\n(explaining that a party calling itself a freight forwarder that performed carrier functions would\\nbe a carrier). The key inquiry is what the party did. If it issued a bill of lading, then it is usually\\na “carrier” under COGSA. See id. at 129; Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp.,\\n159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026. It is not dispositive that the party hired a third party to actually carry\\nthe goods. See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp., 159 F. Supp. 2d at 1026.\\n\\n We turn to the Complaint and the Bill of Lading. Because this is an appeal from a\\nMotion to Dismiss, we must construe Dimond’s factual allegations as true. See Hall, 727 F.3d at\\n453. Dimond alleged that BDP represented that BDP would handle all aspects of the shipment\\nincluding, inter alia, providing a ship, dispatching the shipments, handling export documents,\\nand preparing bills of lading. Dimond asserted that BDP had “subcontracted its shipping/freight\\nforwarding services/obligations” to Logitrans. BDP apparently obtained one ship for Dimond\\nand provided a booking note, but the first ship became unavailable. BDP also allegedly made all\\nthe arrangements for the stevedores to load the ship. Dimond alleges that after the original ship\\nwas no longer available, BDP notified it that Logitrans would be involved in shipping the\\nEquipment, and that BDP and Logitrans ultimately selected the Gisele Scan. BDP issued the Bill\\nof Lading, which identified Logitrans as the “carrier” to Dimond.\\n\\n Assuming Dimond’s allegations about Appellees’ roles are true, BDP appears to have\\nengaged in some freight-forwarding services, such as securing the ship, handling export\\ndocuments, and making arrangements for stevedores to load the Equipment. See Prima U.S.\\nInc., 223 F.3d at 129. BDP was not responsible for transporting the Equipment to the Port of\\nCleveland—Dimond asserts that it handled that. BDP, however, issued the Bill of Lading, which\\nis a service provided by a carrier. Ibid.; Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Shonac Corp., 159 F.\\n\\n\\n 13In Shonac Corp. v. Maersk, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1026 (S.D. Ohio 2001), the district court\\nidentified a second approach, set forth in Zima Corp. v. M.V. Roman Pazinski, 493 F. Supp. 268, 273 (S.D.N.Y.\\n1980). Under this approach, a party may be determined to be a carrier through a four-factor test: (1) how the party’s\\nobligation is expressed in documents pertaining to the agreement; (2) the history of dealings between the parties;\\n(3) whether the party issued a bill of lading; and (4) how the party charged the shipper. Ibid.; see also Sabah\\nShipyard v. M/V Harbel Tapper, 178 F.3d 400, 405 n.2 (5th Cir. 1999). In Fortis Corp. Ins., S.A. v. Viken Ship\\nMgmt. AS, 597 F.3d 784, 789 (6th Cir. 2010), we focused on the language of the statute instead of a multi-factor test.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\nSupp. 2d at 1026. Logitrans was also involved in securing the ship. It is listed as the “carrier”\\non the Bill of Lading. Dimond also refers to Logitrans as the “carrier” in its briefs.\\n\\n Sabah Shipyard is illustrative in resolving whether BDP and Logitrans are “carriers”\\nunder COGSA. In that case, Sabah had to ship some equipment to Malaysia. 178 F.3d at 403.\\nIMB won the bid to transport the equipment. IMB’s agent, Intermarine, issued a bill of lading.\\nAfter some of the equipment slid into the Singapore harbor, Sabah filed suit seeking damages\\nunder COGSA. The district court found that the defendants were liable for negligence but did\\nnot apply a COGSA limit on liability because it held that IMB and Intermarine were forwarders,\\nnot carriers. Ibid. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court erred when it determined\\nthat IMB and Intermarine were not carriers within the meaning of COGSA. Id. at 406. The Fifth\\nCircuit explained that “[t]o determine whether a party is a COGSA carrier, we have followed\\nCOGSA’s plain language, focusing on whether the party entered into a contract of carriage with\\na shipper.” Id. at 405. Because IMB and Intermarine entered into a contract of carriage—\\nnamely, they “agreed to carry Sabah’s goods by sea, and they issued a bill of lading[,]” they were\\ncarriers. Ibid.\\n\\n BDP entered into a contract of carriage with Dimond because it took on the responsibility\\nof transporting the Equipment by sea. BDP issued the Bill of Lading. Dimond Rigging, 320 F.\\nSupp. 3d at 949. BDP is a carrier. See Sabah Shipyard, 178 F.3d at 405; Bunge Edible Oil Corp.\\nv. M/Vs Torm Rask & Fort Steele, 949 F.2d 786, 788–89 (5th Cir. 1992) (explaining that\\ncharterer of vessel who enters into contract of carriage with shipper is a carrier); Nitram, Inc. v.\\nCretan Life, 599 F.2d 1359, 1370 (5th Cir. 1979) (concluding that party that entered into a\\ncontract of carriage covered by a bill of lading is a carrier within COGSA’s definition).\\nLogitrans also entered into a contract of carriage with Dimond. It signed the Bill of Lading and\\nis identified as the “carrier.” Accordingly, Logitrans is also a carrier. See Bunge Edible Oil\\nCorp., 949 F.2d at 788; Nitram, Inc., 599 F.2d at 1370. Because we conclude that BDP and\\nLogitrans are “carriers” within the meaning of COGSA, there is no need to address the Himalaya\\nClause.\\n\\n Dimond argues that equitable estoppel should bar BDP and Logitrans from benefiting\\nfrom COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations because BDP and Logitrans were not in\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\ncompliance with COGSA. Dimond maintains that we should apply equitable estoppel to “refuse\\nto validate Defendant’s wrongful conduct in this case through a Motion to Dismiss on limitations\\ngrounds arising from a statute with which they did not comply.” Dimond offers a list of various\\nfederal shipping laws and regulations that it asserts BDP and Logitrans have violated and argues\\nthat because they misrepresented their status as licensed entities, they should not be allowed to\\nuse COGSA as a defense. Dimond has not identified any portion of COGSA that the Appellees\\nhave allegedly not complied with.\\n\\n The district court ruled that there was no basis to apply equitable estoppel because\\nCOGSA does not include licensure provisions. Dimond Rigging, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 953–54. To\\nbe sure, COGSA does not supersede rights and obligations set forth in other federal statutes. See\\n46 U.S.C. § 30701 (Notes §§ 8, 12). COGSA establishes “particularized duties and obligations\\nupon, and grants stated immunities” to carriers. Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Mach. Corp.,\\n359 U.S. 297, 301 (1959). We explained in Fortis Corp., 597 F.3d at 789, that COGSA “was\\ndrafted to address the belief that carriers used their superior bargaining power against shippers\\nwhen contracting for the carriage of goods, and could often dictate the terms of bills of lading to\\nexempt themselves from any liability.” Nonetheless, the district court was quite correct that\\nCOGSA does not concern itself with licensing.\\n\\n Dimond’s complaint does not allege that BDP and Logitrans represented that they were\\nin compliance with COGSA. For Dimond to estop BDP and Logitrans from using COGSA as a\\ndefense, it would have to show that it detrimentally relied on such representations. See Thomas\\nv. Miller, 489 F.3d 293, 302 (2007) (setting out elements of equitable estoppel); see also Oxford\\nShipping Co., Ltd. v. N.H. Trading Corp., 697 F.2d 1, 3–4 (1st Cir. 1982) (equitable estoppel\\nclaim under COGSA). It has not done so.\\n\\n Dimond also maintains that the Bill of Lading is an illegal contract because, as\\nunlicensed entities, BDP and Logitrans could not issue an enforceable Bill of Lading, although\\nDimond suggests that BDP might be a licensed freight forwarder. BDP and Logitrans dispute\\nthe accuracy of Dimond’s licensing arguments. BDP asserts that the record below shows that it\\nhas been a licensed Ocean Transport Intermediary under the Federal Maritime Commission\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n(“FMC”) since 1999.14 Logitrans maintains that it is not required to have a license because it is a\\n“vessel/cargo/charter broker.” Appellees also insist that licensure is irrelevant to the application\\nof COGSA and the lack of a license does not void a contract. As noted above, the district court\\nonly ruled that COGSA does not contain licensing requirements. It did not take judicial notice of\\nBDP’s license or make any findings on that issue.\\n\\n Dimond points to FMC regulations concerning licensing, particularly 46 C.F.R. § 515.3,\\nwhich provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this part, no person in the United States may\\nact as an ocean transport intermediary unless that person holds a valid license issued by the\\nCommission.” Dimond insists that FMC regulations, specifically id. § 515.2(h)(5) and (k)(4),\\nprohibit an unlicensed person (Logitrans) or a licensed freight-forwarder (BDP) from issuing a\\nlegally-enforceable bill of lading. Subsection (h) in that regulation defines “[f]reight forwarding\\nservices,” which “refers to the dispatching of shipments on behalf of others” to facilitate\\nshipments by a common carrier, “which may include, but are not limited to . . . [p]reparing\\nand/or processing common carrier bills of lading or other shipping documents.” Id.\\n§ 515.2(h)(5). Subsection (k)(4) states that NVOCC services “may include . . . [i]ssuing bills of\\nlading or other shipping documents.” Id. (k)(4). This definitional regulation may identify what\\ncertain services within the regulations are or include, but it does not contain any language\\nestablishing, as Dimond argues, that BDP could not issue a legally-enforceable bill of lading.\\n\\n Assuming, for the sake of argument, that an unlicensed entity issued the Bill of Lading,\\nwe briefly consider whether an unlicensed entity may make a valid contract. The parties dispute\\nwhether Adams Express Co. v. Darden, 286 F. 61 (6th Cir. 1923), supports the argument that an\\nunlicensed entity may create a valid and enforceable contact. In Adams Express, the shipper\\narranged for a carrier to transport six horses. In violation of the Interstate Commerce Act, the\\ncarrier misrepresented the horses’ value to pay lower tariff rates. Id. at 62–63. The carrier was\\nnegligent and the car containing the horses wrecked, killing five horses. The shipper sued and\\nwas awarded the value of the horses. The carrier appealed, arguing that because it had violated\\nthe Act, the shipping contract was void. Id. at 63. We explained that whether the contract was\\nvoid and unenforceable depended on the public policy of the United States. Id. at 65. The\\n 14Dimond argues that BDP only obtained a license in 2013, after the events at issue.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nstatute penalized the carrier’s practices (and would have penalized the shipper as well), but it\\n“never declared the contract of carriage unenforceable . . . .” Ibid. We offered the following\\nanalysis: “[W]hen a statute imposes specific penalties for its violation, where the act is not\\nmalum in se, and the purpose of the statute can be accomplished without declaring contracts in\\nviolation thereof illegal, the inference is that it was not the legislative intent to render such\\ncontracts illegal and unenforceable.” Ibid. Applying this principle, we concluded that “Congress\\npresumably believed” that it was better to permit suit to hold a carrier liable for the value of the\\nitems destroyed by its negligence, even if the carrier had violated the Act and was subject to the\\npenalties. Ibid.\\n\\n Dimond argues that Adams Express cannot apply because there are no penalties in the\\nShipping Act for operating without a license and operating without a license is malum in se.15\\nAs to the first point, whatever the Act may say, FMC regulations pursuant to the Act do, in fact,\\nimpose civil penalties for operating without a license. See 46 C.F.R. § 515.1(b) (civil penalty\\nthat does not exceed $9,000 per violation, unless said violation was knowing or willful, in which\\ncase penalty may not exceed $45,000 per violation). Dimond’s insistence that only licensed\\nentities may operate is further undermined by FMC regulations that permit operations without a\\nlicense. See, e.g., id. § 515.4(c) (common carriers or their agents may perform freight-\\nforwarding services without a license with respect to cargo carried under carrier’s own bill of\\nlading).\\n\\n The FMC regulatory scheme surrounding licensing emphasizes experience and character,\\nbut also financial dependability, and compliance with other federal statutes and regulations. See\\nid. § 515.11. The bond requirements ensure that claims against an OTI may be adequately\\ncompensated in the event that a complaint is filed with the FMC—although this is not the sole\\nremedy. See id. § 515.23. It does not appear that the purpose of these regulations may only be\\naccomplished by voiding a bill of lading issued by an unlicensed party in violation of the\\n\\n\\n\\n 15Operating without a license is an act that is purely prohibited by statute, rather than inherently wrong in\\nand of itself. Compare malum in se, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) (“A crime or act that is inherently\\nimmoral, such as murder, arson, or rape.”), with malum prohibitum, id. (“An act that is a crime merely because it is\\nprohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral.”).\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\nregulations. As Dimond has not offered any authority within the Shipping Act or its regulations\\nthat states that such a bill of lading is unenforceable, we reject these arguments.\\n\\n The Bill of Lading is a contract of carriage, subject to COGSA. BDP and Logitrans are\\ncarriers as the term is defined in COGSA. We reject Dimond’s arguments that the Appellees\\nshould be estopped from using the one-year statute of limitations as a defense, and that BDP\\ncould not issue a legally enforceable Bill of Lading. Accordingly, we do not need to address\\nwhether state statutes of limitations would bar Dimond’s action even if COGSA did not apply.\\nThe district court did not err in concluding that COGSA’s one-year statute of limitations barred\\nDimond’s suits.\\n\\n C. Default\\n\\n Dimond asserts that the district court should have entered a default against Logitrans\\nbecause it did not answer Dimond’s Complaint. Within the time permitted to respond,\\nLogitrans’s President sent Dimond a letter that answered the gist of the Complaint. Logitrans,\\nhowever, failed to file any responsive pleading with the court. After Dimond asked the district\\ncourt to enter a default on December 29, 2017, Logitrans filed a memorandum opposing the\\nentry of default on January 3, 2018. The district court denied Dimond’s request for default and\\nordered Logitrans to file an amended answer by January 16. Logitrans filed its motion to dismiss\\nby the deadline.\\n\\n An order that denies a motion for a default is not immediately appealable. McNutt v.\\nCardox Corp., 329 F.2d 107, 108 (6th Cir. 1964). Dimond appealed from the final judgment of\\nthe district court, which would include all prior interlocutory orders and rulings that were not\\nreviewable until the final judgment. See Tetro v. Elliott Popham Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick &\\nGMC Trucks, Inc., 173 F.3d 988, 993 (6th Cir. 1999) (“[A]n appeal from a final judgment\\ngenerally brings up all prior interlocutory orders and rulings that were not reviewable until the\\nentry of a final judgment.”). The district court dismissed Dimond’s case, and therefore the denial\\nof the motion of default is reviewable along with the order of dismissal. Because Dimond has\\nappealed from the entry of a final judgment, the court has jurisdiction over this issue on appeal.\\nIbid.\\n\\f No. 18-3615 Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int’l, Inc., et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\n Logitrans argues that Dimond has waived this issue on appeal because it did not identify\\nthis issue in the “issues presented for review” section of its brief.16 Federal Rule of Appellate\\nProcedure 28(a)(5) states that the appellant’s brief “must contain . . . a statement of the issues\\npresented for review . . . .” (Emphasis added). Applying this rule, we have concluded that when\\nan appellant does not comply by listing all the issues presented for review in the statement of\\nissues, the appellant waives that argument. See United States v. Calvetti, 836 F.3d 654, 664 (6th\\nCir. 2016); United States v. Honeycutt, 816 F.3d 362, 370 (6th Cir. 2016), rev’d on other\\ngrounds by 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017); Barrett v. Detroit Heading, LLC, 311 F. App’x 779, 796 (6th\\nCir. 2009). Because Dimond did not include its claim that the district court should have granted\\nit a default against Logitrans in its statement of issues, it is waived.\\n\\n The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 16Dimond offers no response to this argument in its Reply Brief.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":160,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4585415,"string":"4,585,415"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Walid JAMMAL ; Kathleen Tuersley; Cinda J. Durachinsky; Nathan Garrett, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; American Family Mutual Insurance Company; American Family Life Insurance Company; American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin; American Family Termination Benefits Plan; Retirement Plan for Employees of American Family Insurance Group; American Family 401K Plan; Group Life Plan ; Group Health Plan; Group Dental Plan ; Long Term Disability Plan; American Family Insurance Group Master Retirement Trust; 401K Plan Administrative Committee; Committee of Employees and District Manager Retirement Plan, Defendants-Appellants."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Walid Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-29"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-4125"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Boggs, Clay\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887934/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"040dissent\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887935/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"BOGGS, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0012p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n WALID JAMMAL; KATHLEEN TUERSLEY; CINDA J. ┐\\n DURACHINSKY; NATHAN GARRETT, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > No. 17-4125\\n │\\n │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN; │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY TERMINATION BENEFITS PLAN; │\\n RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP; AMERICAN FAMILY 401K │\\n PLAN; GROUP LIFE PLAN; GROUP HEALTH PLAN; │\\n GROUP DENTAL PLAN; LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP MASTER │\\n RETIREMENT TRUST; 401K PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE │\\n COMMITTEE; COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES AND DISTRICT │\\n MANAGER RETIREMENT PLAN, │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:13-cv-00437—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: July 31, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Pierre H. Bergeron, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for\\nAppellants. Charles J. Crueger, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, for\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Pierre H. Bergeron, Lauren S. Kuley, Scott W. Coyle, Colter Paulson,\\nSQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gregory V. Mersol, Gilbert Brosky,\\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Charles J. Crueger, Erin K.\\nDickinson, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, Gregory F. Coleman,\\nGREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Knoxville, Tennessee, Edward A. Wallace, Kara A. Elgersma,\\nWEXLER WALLACE LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Drew T. Legando, LANDSKRONER GRIECO\\nMERRIMAN, LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. J. Philip Calabrese, PORTER WRIGHT\\nMORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, C. Darcy Copeland Jalandoni, PORTER\\nWRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Shay Dvoretzky, JONES DAY,\\nWashington, D.C., Paulo B. McKeeby, Ronald E. Manthey, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS\\nLLP, Dallas, Texas, Mary Ellen Signorille, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Washington,\\nD.C., Seth R. Lesser, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Rye Brook, New York, for Amici\\nCuriae.\\n\\n BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined. CLAY, J.\\n(pp. 16–25), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In this class action, the named plaintiffs represent several\\nthousand current and former insurance agents for American Family Insurance Company and its\\naffiliates (collectively, “American Family” or “the company”). The agents claim that American\\nFamily misclassified them as independent contractors, while treating them as employees, in order\\nto avoid paying them benefits in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act\\nof 1974 (“ERISA”).\\n\\n The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal concerns the nature of the parties’ legal\\nrelationship: are the plaintiffs employees or independent contractors for American Family? The\\ncompany appeals the district court’s judgment that the plaintiffs are employees. Because\\nAmerican Family properly classified its agents as independent contractors, we reverse.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n I\\n\\n As with many insurance companies, American Family sells its products primarily through\\na network of insurance agents. American Family, in keeping with common industry practice,\\nclassifies its agents as independent contractors rather than employees.\\n\\n Taking issue with this designation and the consequences it has on their ability to enjoy\\nthe protections of ERISA, the plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against American Family\\nin 2013, alleging that the company misclassified them as independent contractors. The plaintiffs\\ncontended that their miscategorization “deprived [them] of the rights and protections guaranteed\\nby state and federal law to employees, including their rights under ERISA.” They sought, inter\\nalia, a declaratory judgment that they are employees for all purposes, including but not limited to\\nERISA, and that as employees they are due benefits under ERISA.\\n\\n Both parties filed several pre-trial motions, including motions by American Family to\\ndismiss and later for summary judgment. The plaintiffs, for their part, moved for class\\ncertification. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied each of American\\nFamily’s motions in whole or in part. The company sought permission from this court to appeal\\nthe district court’s order granting class certification, but we denied the company’s request. The\\ndistrict court subsequently denied two motions by American Family to decertify the class.\\n\\n The case then proceeded to trial, which the district court bifurcated to allow for\\ndetermination of the threshold question of the plaintiffs’ employment status. Trial of this single\\nissue took place before an advisory jury, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1),\\nwhich permits district courts to “try any issue with an advisory jury” in an action that is “not\\ntriable of right by a jury.”1\\n\\n During the twelve-day trial, the jury learned that the parties took many steps to structure\\ntheir relationship consistent with American Family’s position that its agents are independent\\ncontractors. Most pointedly, at the outset of the agents’ tenure with the company, all agents\\n\\n\\n 1Plaintiffsseeking relief under ERISA generally have no right to have their claims decided by a jury. See,\\ne.g., Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., 150 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998); Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.,\\n123 F.3d 877, 882–83 (6th Cir. 1997); Bair v. Gen. Motors Corp., 895 F.2d 1094, 1096–97 (6th Cir. 1990).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nsigned a written agreement stating that they were independent contractors rather than employees.\\nIn keeping with this designation, the agents file their taxes as independent contractors and deduct\\ntheir business expenses as self-employed business owners. American Family also pays its agents\\nin commissions and does not provide them with vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, or paid time\\noff.\\n\\n Moreover, as the district court recounted, “[t]he company calls its agents ‘business\\nowners’ and ‘partners’ and tells new agents they will be ‘agency business’ owners and that they\\nneed to ‘invest’ in ‘their business.’” The agents work out of their own offices, set their own\\nhours, and hire and pay their own staff. They also are responsible for providing most of the\\nresources necessary to run their agencies, such as office furniture and office supplies.\\n\\n But the plaintiffs also presented significant evidence to support their claim that American\\nFamily treats them more like employees than independent partners and business owners. The\\ncompany classifies everyone in its sales force—other than its agents—as employees.\\nNevertheless, the company’s training manuals refer to the agents as “employees.” Each agent\\nmust report to an Agency Sales Manager, and the plaintiffs presented testimony that American\\nFamily did not train these managers to treat the agents as independent contractors or even make\\nthe managers aware that the agents were classified as such.\\n\\n According to the plaintiffs, the managers exerted a great amount of control over their\\nday-to-day activities. The managers insisted, among other required tasks, that the agents\\ncomplete daily activity reports, prioritize selling certain insurance policies, and participate in\\n“life-call” nights in which the agents had to stay after normal business hours to solicit life\\ninsurance by calling prospective customers. The plaintiffs also offered testimony that the\\ncompany retained some authority to approve or disapprove of the location of the agents’ offices\\nand to be involved in the hiring and firing of the agents’ staff in a way that limited the plaintiffs’\\nability to run their own agencies.\\n\\n The jury also heard testimony that American Family teaches agents everything they need\\nto know to become licensed, run an agency, and sell the company’s products. All agents attend a\\ntwo-to-three-month-long comprehensive training program run by American Family on how to\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nsell insurance and how to operate an agency. Once hired, the agents must sell insurance\\nexclusively for American Family, and they are discouraged—but not forbidden—from taking\\nother work, even if it is unrelated to the insurance industry. There is no limit on the duration of\\nthe agency relationship, and American Family describes the agency position as a career position.\\nAlthough the agents are not eligible for the same pension or retirement plans given to the\\ncompany’s employees, they are offered an “extended earnings” benefit that is described to them\\nas a retirement plan.2 When and if their relationship with the company does come to an end, the\\nagents are prohibited for a year from soliciting business from any of their former American\\nFamily customers. And unlike most business owners, the agents cannot sell their agencies or\\nassign any rights to income from their agencies.\\n\\n At the close of the trial, the court presented the advisory jury with the following\\ninterrogatory:\\n\\n Please answer the following question “yes” or “no” according to your findings:\\n Did Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are employees\\n of Defendant American Family?\\n\\nThe jury answered “yes.”\\n\\n After giving the parties a final opportunity to present their proposed findings of fact and\\nconclusions of law, the court issued an opinion in which it acknowledged that although it was not\\nbound by the advisory jury’s determination, it believed that the jury’s verdict “comport[ed] with\\nthe weight of the evidence presented at trial.” Accordingly, the district court determined that the\\nagents were employees for the purposes of ERISA.\\n\\n The district court certified its ruling for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1292(b), and American Family filed a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2The “extended earnings” program offered a lifetime annuity to agents and was reported as one of\\nAmerican Family’s “Defined Benefit Plans” in its annual statement filed with insurance regulators. Agents were\\nautomatically enrolled in these plans, did not contribute to these plans, and received increasing benefits with\\nincreasing years of service.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nWe granted permission to appeal, which American Family did, arguing that the district court\\nerred in determining that the plaintiffs are employees.3\\n\\n II\\n\\n A\\n\\n The determination of whether a plaintiff qualifies as an employee under ERISA is a\\nmixed question of law and fact that a judge normally can make as a matter of law. See Weary v.\\nCochran, 377 F.3d 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2004); Waxman v. Luna, 881 F.2d 237, 240 (6th Cir.\\n1989). After a bench trial to determine a plaintiff’s employment status, this court typically\\nreviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including its\\nultimate decision about the plaintiff’s status, de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch.,\\nInc., 642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011). However, “[o]n interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n1292(b), our review is limited to the district court’s conclusions of law.” Sheet Metal Emp’rs\\nIndus. Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co., 830 F.3d 358, 361 (6th Cir. 2016). We review\\nthose conclusions de novo, but “we have no authority to review the district court’s findings of\\nfact.” Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2001).\\n\\n “ERISA is a comprehensive statute designed to promote the interests of employees and\\ntheir beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983).\\nThe plaintiffs brought this action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), which enables “participant[s]” in an\\nemployee benefit plan to enforce ERISA’s substantive provisions. Under ERISA, a “participant”\\nis “any employee or former employee of an employer . . . who is or may become eligible to\\nreceive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such\\nemployer.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). Therefore, the plaintiffs can prevail on their ERISA claims\\nonly if they can show that they were American Family’s employees. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.\\nDarden, 503 U.S. 318, 321 (1992).\\n\\n ERISA defines an “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 1002(6). An “employer,” in turn, “means any person acting directly as an employer, or\\n\\n 3The company also contends that the court’s determination was erroneous because it relied on non-\\nrepresentative class evidence. Because we decide the case on other grounds, we do not reach this issue.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nindirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan.” § 1002(5).\\nBecause these definitions provide little guidance as to the meaning of “employee,” “the Supreme\\nCourt has instructed courts to interpret the term by ‘incorporating the common law of agency.’”\\nBryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 656 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting\\nWare v. United States, 67 F.3d 574, 576 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Darden, 503 U.S. at 322–24)).\\n\\n In Darden, the Supreme Court provided the following standard “for determining who\\nqualifies as an ‘employee’ under ERISA.” 503 U.S. at 323.\\n\\n In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common\\n law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and\\n means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to\\n this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the\\n location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether\\n the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the\\n extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method\\n of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the\\n work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is\\n in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired\\n party.\\n\\nId. at 323–24 (quoting Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751–52 (1989)).\\nIn addition to these factors (“the Darden factors”), we have held that an express agreement\\nbetween the parties concerning employment status is also a relevant consideration. See Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525.\\n\\n The “crux of Darden’s common law agency test is ‘the hiring party’s right to control the\\nmanner and means by which the product is accomplished.’” Ibid. (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at\\n323). Thus, “our analysis of [the Darden] factors . . . reflects upon, and is relevant to, this core\\nissue of control.” Ibid. “[T]he relative weight given each factor may differ depending upon the\\nlegal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. “Notwithstanding this recognition\\nthat certain factors may deserve added weight in some contexts, a court must evaluate all of the\\nincidents of the employment relationship.” Ibid.; see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (“Since the\\ncommon-law test contains ‘no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the\\nanswer, . . . all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nfactor being decisive.’” (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S.\\n254, 258 (1968)).\\n\\n Applying the test from Darden and its progeny, the district court determined that the\\nplaintiffs were employees rather than independent contractors. After deciding that the Darden\\nfactors were “almost evenly split between favoring employee status and favoring independent\\ncontractor status,” the court proceeded to a broader analysis of the level of control that American\\nFamily exercised over its agents. Ultimately, the court concluded that “[t]he degree of control\\nmanagers were encouraged to exercise was inconsistent with independent contractor status and\\nwas more in line with the level of control a manager would be expected to exert over an\\nemployee.” This, along with the evidence related to the other Darden factors, led the court to\\ndetermine that the plaintiffs were employees during the relevant class period.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Since in this interlocutory appeal we may review only the district court’s conclusions of\\nlaw, we must first decide which of the court’s determinations were matters of law and which\\nwere factual. This much is clear: the district court’s findings underlying its holding on each of\\nthe Darden factors are factual findings, and the court’s ultimate conclusion as to whether the\\nplaintiffs were employees is a question of law.\\n\\n But what of the court’s conclusions about the Darden factors—both of their existence\\nand of the weight to be assigned them? Are these factual findings or conclusions of law?\\nAlthough neither party has provided much briefing on this question, the plaintiffs suggest that\\nthese are issues of fact, while American Family claims that they are issues of law. The parties’\\ndispute is understandable, as we have yet to clarify whether and to what extent a court’s\\nconclusions about the individual factors that make up the Darden standard are factual or legal in\\nnature. Indeed, some of our decisions seem to be in tension with one another, with some\\nindicating that a district court’s determinations on the Darden factors are factual findings, see\\nPeno Trucking, Inc. v. C.I.R., 296 F. App’x 449, 454–60 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating, first, that the\\nappropriate rule is to review factual findings for clear error and, second, that the Tax Court’s\\nfindings about control and other factors were not clearly erroneous); Moore v. Lafayette Life Ins.,\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n458 F.3d 416, 440 (6th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court’s findings on Darden factors\\nwere not clearly erroneous), and others suggesting that they are legal conclusions, see Janette v.\\nAm. Fid. Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App’x 467, 473–74 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing the proper tests for the\\ncontrol factor and skill-required factor); Weary, 377 F.3d at 526 (explaining that a certain degree\\nof limited authority is not the type of control that establishes an employer-employee\\nrelationship); id. at 532 (arguing that the majority erred in defining the skill-required factor and\\nexplaining what the “legal issue” is concerning that factor) (Clay, J., dissenting).\\n\\n Other circuits, however, have explicitly considered this question and have come down on\\nthe side of treating these as factual matters subject to review for clear error. According to our\\nsister circuits:\\n\\n The existence and degree of each factor is a question of fact while the legal\\n conclusion to be drawn from those facts—whether workers are employees or\\n independent contractors—is a question of law. Thus, a district court’s findings as\\n to the underlying factors must be accepted unless clearly erroneous, while review\\n of the ultimate question of employment status is de novo.\\n\\nBrock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1988) (applying multi-factor\\n“economic reality” test to claim under FLSA); Berger Transfer & Storage v. Cent. States, Se.\\nand Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir. 1996); Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d\\n802, 805 (10th Cir. 1989).\\n\\n Granting due weight to our own and our sister circuits’ jurisprudence, we do not agree\\nthat a district court’s conclusion relating to the existence and degree of each Darden factor is\\nentirely a question of fact. There is a distinction between a lower court’s factual findings, which\\nwe review for clear error, and “the district court’s application of the legal standard to them,”\\nwhich we review de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School, Inc., 642 F.3d 518, 522\\n(6th Cir. 2011). The lower court’s determination of a Darden factor often necessarily involves\\nthe application of a legal standard to particular factual findings. Take, for example, Darden’s\\nfirst factor: “[W]hether the skill [required of an agent] is an independent discipline\\n(or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was) learned elsewhere.”\\nWeary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 323. As Judge Clay\\nobserved in his dissent in Weary, there is a “legal issue” inherent in the first factor as to whether\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nto consider “the amount of skill required” or rather “whether the skill is an independent\\ndiscipline (or profession) that is separate from the business.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J.,\\ndissenting). Each Darden factor is thus itself a “legal standard” that the district court is applying\\nto the facts. See also Ware, 67 F.3d at 576 (distinguishing the “facts and circumstances”\\nunderlying the Darden factors from both “the legal meaning and weight that those facts should\\nbe given individually and in the aggregate”) (emphasis added). It is therefore appropriate for us\\nto review de novo those determinations to the extent that they involve the application of a legal\\nstandard to a set of facts.\\n\\n What’s more, as we recognized in Ware, “the relative weight given to each [Darden]\\nfactor may differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Id. at 578 (emphasis\\nadded). Thus, for example, “a hiring party’s control is more relevant in the context of copyright\\nownership, because the statute assigns ownership on the basis of authorship unless the parties\\nexplicitly agree otherwise,” but “less important in an ERISA context.” Ibid. This implies that\\ncertain factors may carry more or less weight depending on the particular legal context in which\\nthe independent-contractor relationship is being determined. Ibid. (noting that the “same test\\nmight produce disparate results in different contexts”). Accordingly, it is also appropriate for us\\nto review de novo the district court’s weight assigned to of each of the Darden factors, given the\\nlegal context in which the claim has been brought.\\n\\n III\\n\\n A\\n\\n Here, the district court incorrectly applied the legal standards in determining the\\nexistence of the Darden factors relating to (1) the skill required of an agent and (2) the hiring and\\npaying of assistants. Had the court applied those standards properly, it would have found that\\nthose factors actually favored independent-contractor status. We analyze each of those factors\\nbelow.4\\n\\n\\n\\n 4Since we do not find that the district court applied an improper legal standard to any of the other Darden\\nfactors, we do not address them here.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n The first factor under Darden looks to “whether the skill [required of an agent] is an\\nindependent discipline (or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was)\\nlearned elsewhere.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Janette, 298 F. App’x\\nat 474. The district court held that the “amount of skill” factor under Darden weighs “slightly in\\nfavor of employee status” primarily on the basis that American Family “sought out potential\\nagents who were untrained.” In doing so, the district court erred.\\n\\n This circuit has previously held that the skill required of insurance agents weighs in favor\\nof independent-contractor status because “the sale of insurance is a highly specialized field” that\\nrequires “considerable training, education, and skill.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 526–27 (internal\\nquotations omitted). The skill inquiry centers on whether the skill is an independent discipline\\nthat “could be” learned elsewhere. Id. at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting). Though American Family\\npreferred hiring untrained, and often unlicensed, agents, the underlying discipline of selling\\ninsurance remains the same regardless of American Family’s hiring preferences. Ibid.\\n(“[B]ecause the skill of selling insurance is a general one, the majority may be correct in its\\nconclusion that this factor favors independent contractor status.”). The district court therefore\\nmisapplied the legal standard to the facts; the correct application would have weighed this factor\\nin favor of independent contractor status, as this circuit has done previously.\\n\\n Darden’s eighth factor examines “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants.”\\nDarden, 503 U.S. at 323–24. The court mistakenly weighed this factor as “neutral” after\\nconcluding that the agents “had primary authority to hire their own staff” and were solely\\nresponsible for all “staff compensation matters.”\\n\\n The district court found, as a factual matter, that American Family agents were\\nresponsible for paying their own staff, determining and paying for any benefits and taxes\\nassociated with that staff, and deciding whether to classify their staff as employees or\\nindependent contractors. While American Family provided “pre-approved” candidates, whom\\nthe agents could select as their staff, it did not require the agents to hire these pre-screened\\ncandidates. Agents also had sole discretion in staff-compensation matters and the sole\\nresponsibility to withhold and remit taxes to the federal government as the employers of their\\nstaff.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n On the other hand, American Family imposed qualifications on appointed agency staff,\\nincluding state licensure, clean driving records, education levels, credit history, and minimum\\nincome-to-debt ratios. American Family did not provide computer access to any non-approved\\nappointed agency staff and required agency staff to agree to a lifetime non-solicitation\\nagreement. American Family had the right to fire any agency staff, appointed or non-appointed,\\nwho did not live up to the American Family Code of Conduct, and it retained the right, although\\nrarely exercised, to fire agency staff for any reason. American Family managers were also\\nevaluated on the number of staff employed by their agents and would sometimes offer monetary\\nsubsidies to agents to hire more staff.\\n\\n Considering all of these facts, the district court determined that “[a]lthough American\\nFamily retained some right to override an agent’s hiring and firing decision, on balance, agents\\nhad primary authority over hiring and paying their assistants.” Yet the court inexplicably\\nconcluded from that finding that the factor was “neutral.” This conclusion was contrary to\\nDarden’s language. If the hired party has the “primary authority over hiring and paying its own\\nassistants,” the Darden factor regarding “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants”\\nshould weigh in favor of independent-contractor status. Janette, 298 F. App’x at 475–76\\n(Because plaintiff “could have hired assistants, at her expense,” the factor favored independent-\\ncontractor status.). Any other conclusion conflicts with Darden’s clear language.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Further, given our determination regarding the existence of each of the Darden factors,5\\nthe district court also erred by not properly weighing those factors that are particularly significant\\nin the legal context of ERISA eligibility. Darden asks us to look at the “hiring party’s right to\\ncontrol the manner and means by which the product is accomplished,” which we have\\ndetermined to be “a broad consideration that is embodied in many of the specific factors\\narticulated” there. Weary, 377 F.3d at 525. But “the relative weight given each [Darden] factor\\nmay differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. In\\nparticular, “control and supervision is less important in an ERISA context, where a court is\\n\\n 5That is to say, whether each Darden factor favors independent-contractor or employee status.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\ndetermining whether an employer has assumed responsibility for a person’s pension status.”\\nIbid. Because ERISA cases focus on the financial benefits that a company should have provided,\\nthe financial structure of the company-agent relationship guides the inquiry. Here, the Darden\\nfactors that most pertain to that financial structure favor independent-contractor status and,\\naccordingly, carry more weight in the ERISA context.\\n\\n In this case, the district court found that the insurance agents invested heavily in their\\noffices and instrumentalities, paid rent and worked out of their own offices, earned commissions\\non sales, were not eligible for employment benefits, and paid taxes as independent contractors.\\nAccordingly, the court weighed factors two (the source of the instrumentalities and tools), three\\n(the location of the work), seven (method of payment), eleven (provision of employee benefits),\\nand twelve (tax treatment) in favor of independent-contractor status.6 We have now corrected\\nthe district court’s weighing of factors one (the skill required) and eight (the hired party’s role in\\nhiring and paying assistants) to favor independent-contractor status, as well. Because this\\ninquiry exists in the legal context of ERISA benefits, this collection of factors—particularly the\\nones relating to the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the method of payment, the\\nprovision of employee benefits, and the agents’ tax treatment—is especially important in\\ndetermining the parties’ financial structure. Accordingly, these factors should have carried\\ngreater weight in the district court’s final analysis. Had the court properly weighed those factors\\nin accordance with their significance, it would have determined that the entire mix of Darden\\nfactors favored independent-contractor status.\\n\\n As further evidence of the financial structure of the parties’ relationship, the lower court\\nshould have also given greater weight to the parties’ express agreement. In determining the\\nparties’ relationship in the Darden context, we have several times “look[ed] to any express\\nagreement between the parties as to their status as it is the best evidence of their intent” and\\nplaced great weight on that agreement. Janette, 298 F. App’x. at 471; Weary, 377 F.3d at 525\\n(noting that the existence of a contract characterizing Weary as an independent contractor is\\n\\n\\n 6The district court weighed the “method of payment” factor in favor of independent-contractor status for\\nagents “once they began selling policies out of their own office.” During the agents’ “training period,” the court\\nweighed the factor in favor of employee status.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n“certainly relevant to the inquiry” and shows “how the parties themselves viewed the nature of\\ntheir working relationship”). Our sister circuits have adopted this approach, as well. See Brown\\nv. J. Kaz., Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that an independent-contractor\\nagreement “is strong evidence” of independent-contractor status); Schwieger v. Farm Bureau\\nIns. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir. 2000) (same). A written contract shows “how the\\nparties themselves viewed the nature of their working relationship” and therefore carries great—\\nbut not dispositive—weight in determining an independent-contractor relationship. Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525.\\n\\n The Agent Agreement governing the parties’ business relationship here indicates that\\nthey structured their relationship so that the agents should be treated as independent contractors.\\nEach Agreement contained a paragraph either identical to or substantively similar to the\\nfollowing:\\n\\n It is the intent of the parties hereto that you are not an employee of the Company\\n for any purpose, but are an independent contractor for all purposes, including\\n federal taxation with full control of your activities and the right to exercise\\n independent judgment as to time, place and manner of soliciting insurance,\\n servicing policyholders and otherwise carrying out the provisions of this\\n agreement. As an independent contractor you are responsible for your self-\\n employment taxes and are not eligible for various employee benefits such as\\n Workers and Unemployment Compensation.\\n\\nThe Agreement also provides that:\\n\\n Rates, rules, regulations and all provisions contained in the Company’s Agent’s\\n Manuals and all changes to them shall be binding upon you. If any inconsistency\\n or ambiguity exists between this agreement and such rate, rule, regulation,\\n provision or other statement or statements, whether written or oral, this agreement\\n shall control.\\n\\n(emphasis added). The Agency Agreement therefore states in wholly unambiguous terms that\\nagents are independent contractors who retain “full control” over several facets of their business.\\n\\n The district court correctly recognized that the agreement favored independent-contractor\\nstatus. But the court apparently did not weigh this important component when reaching its\\nconclusion regarding independent-contractor status. Had the lower court given this express\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nagreement proper consideration, it would have further swung the balance in favor of\\nindependent-contractor status.\\n\\n IV\\n\\n This court has time and again declared insurance agents to have employee status—and\\nappellees have presented no case in which we have not done so. See, e.g., Weary, 377 F.3d at\\n524; Wolcott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 245, 251 (6th Cir. 1989). Some of our sister\\ncircuits have in fact already found American Family agents to be independent contractors in\\nother contexts. Wortham v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 385 F.3d 1139, 1140–41 (8th Cir. 2004);\\nMoore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 90-3107, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13574, *3 (7th Cir.\\nJune 25, 1991). The plaintiffs have not shown that the facts here are so radically different from\\nthese cases to justify what would be a significant departure from these rulings, especially in the\\n“legal context” of ERISA eligibility where we have held that “control and supervision is less\\nimportant” than the financial structure of the parties’ relationship. Ware, 67 F.3d at 578.\\nAccordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this\\nholding.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4362668/\", \"author_raw\": \"BOGGS, Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The only issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether\\nPlaintiffs are “employees” or “independent contractors” for purposes of the Employee\\nRetirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The majority\\nholds that Plaintiffs are independent contractors based on its analysis of the factors set forth by\\nNationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). However, because the majority\\n(1) adopts an incorrect standard of review for district court determinations regarding whether and\\nto what extent the Darden factors support employee or independent contractor status;\\n(2) incorrectly analyzes Darden factors one and eight; and (3) incorrectly weighs the Darden\\nfactors, I respectfully dissent.\\n\\n I. Background\\n\\n American Family Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “American Family” or\\n“Defendants”) is an insurance company “whose business is selling insurance.” (RE 320, District\\nCourt Opinion, PageID # 20949.)1 Unsurprisingly, American Family’s insurance agents “are\\ncore to [this] business.” (Id.) Over the last five years, American Family’s insurance agents have\\nbrought in 85% of American Family’s insurance premiums—approximately $5.1 billion. Yet,\\nAmerican Family does not provide its agents with numerous health, welfare, and retirement\\nbenefits, including “a retirement plan, 401K plan, group health plan, group dental plan, group\\nlife plan, and long-term disability plan.” (Id. at PageID # 20945.) American Family claims it is\\nnot required to provide these benefits because it classifies its insurance agents as independent\\ncontractors, not employees, relieving it of all ERISA obligations.\\n\\n Plaintiffs represent a class of some 7,200 current and former American Family insurance\\nagents seeking ERISA benefits who challenge that classification. Plaintiffs argue that the\\ncircumstances of their relationship with American Family demonstrate that they are employees,\\n\\n\\n 1Except as otherwise indicated, record citations refer to the record in district court action No. 13-cv-00437.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\nregardless of what American Family chooses to call them. Accordingly, the district court\\nbifurcated this case to determine at the outset whether Plaintiffs are employees or independent\\ncontractors for purposes of ERISA.\\n\\n A twelve-day trial before an advisory jury ensued. Twenty-seven witnesses were called,\\nand extensive documentary evidence was submitted. At the conclusion of the trial, the advisory\\njury unanimously concluded that Plaintiffs were employees. Though it was not bound by the\\njury’s verdict, the district court reached the same conclusion.\\n\\n In reaching that conclusion, the district court relied on the factors articulated in\\nNationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) for determining whether an individual\\nis an employee or an independent contractor. The Darden factors include:\\n\\n the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the\\n work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring\\n party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the\\n hiring party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of\\n payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work\\n is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in\\n business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired\\n party.\\n\\nId. at 323–24. This Court has also held that an express agreement between the parties is a\\nrelevant factor. See Weary v. Cochran, 377 F.3d 522, 525 (6th Cir. 2004). The crux of this test\\nis “the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is\\naccomplished.” Darden, 503 U.S. at 323.\\n\\n Although the majority reaches a different conclusion than did the advisory jury and the\\ndistrict court, it disagrees with only a few aspects of the district court’s analysis of the Darden\\nfactors. Because I agree with the advisory jury and the district court, this dissenting opinion will\\naddress only those Darden factors that the majority discusses. The district court’s well-reasoned\\nopinion speaks for itself as to the remaining Darden factors.\\n\\n Before addressing the majority’s discussion of the Darden factors, a preliminary issue\\nmust be resolved.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\n II. Standard of Review and Legal Framework\\n\\n As the majority explains, this case requires us to adopt a standard of review for district\\ncourt determinations regarding the existence and degree of the Darden factors—that is, whether\\nand to what extent each factor supports employee or independent contractor status. Plaintiffs\\nassert that these determinations are findings of fact typically reviewed for clear error, while\\nDefendants assert that they are conclusions of law typically reviewed de novo. The Sixth Circuit\\nhas yet to explicitly address this issue, and our cases implicitly addressing this issue fail to\\nprovide a clear answer. Compare Peno Trucking, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 296 F.\\nApp’x 449, 454–60 (6th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for clear error, without much discussion) with\\nJanette v. Am. Fidelity Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App’x 467, 472–76 (6th Cir. 2008) (reviewing de novo,\\nwithout much discussion). Accordingly, it might be helpful to consider cases from other circuits.\\n\\n Four circuits have explicitly addressed this issue, and all four held that the existence and\\ndegree of each Darden factor constitutes a finding of fact reviewed for clear error. See Berger\\nTransfer & Storage v. Cent. States Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir. 1996); Dole\\nv. Snell, 875 F.2d 802, 805 (10th Cir. 1989); Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059\\n(2d Cir. 1988); Brock v. Mr. W Fireworks, Inc., 814 F.2d 1042, 1043–44 (5th Cir. 1987).2\\n\\n The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Mr. W Fireworks is particularly instructive. In that case,\\nthe court explained that “[t]here are . . . three types of findings involved in determining whether\\none is an employee within the meaning of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act.” 814 F.2d at 1044.\\n“First, there are historical findings of fact that underlie a finding as to one of [the factors].” Id.\\nThese are undisputedly reviewed for clear error. “Second, there are those findings as to\\n[the factors] themselves.” Id. These findings are “plainly and simply based on inferences from\\n[the historical] facts and thus are [also] questions of fact that we may set aside only if clearly\\nerroneous.” Id. “Finally, the district court must reach an ultimate conclusion that the workers at\\nissue are ‘employees’ or ‘independent contractors’” Id. at 1045. This is undisputedly reviewed\\nde novo, as “[t]he ultimate finding as to employee status is not simply a factual inference drawn\\n\\n\\n 2Those cases that pre-date Darden address the same issue with regard to the Darden factors’ predecessor,\\nthe Silk factors. See United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), abrogated by Darden, 503 U.S. at 525.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\nfrom historical facts [like the findings as to the factors themselves], but more accurately is a legal\\nconclusion based on factual inferences drawn from historical facts.” Id.\\n\\n The reasoning of the Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits is sound. “The existence\\nand degree of each [Darden] factor [are] question[s] of fact” because they are based on simple\\ninferences drawn from underlying historical findings of fact. Berger Transfer, 85 F.3d at 1377–\\n78. For instance, Darden factor five is “whether the hiring party has the right to assign\\nadditional projects to the hired party.” Darden, 503 U.S. at 323–24. A finding that this factor\\nsupports employee status is based on a simple inference from a finding that “the hiring party had\\nthe right to assign additional projects to the hired party.” See Hi-Tech Video Prods., Inc. v.\\nCapital Cities/ABC, Inc., 58 F.3d 1093, 1096 (6th Cir. 1995). Thus, the two findings should both\\nbe subject to the clear error standard of review.\\n\\n The majority’s contrary holding—that “[e]ach Darden factor is . . . itself a ‘legal\\nstandard’ that the district court is applying to the facts”—is belied not only by the unanimity of\\nother circuits that have addressed this issue, but also by the cases on which it purports to rely.\\nThe majority’s reliance on my dissent in Weary v. Cochran, wherein I referred to Darden factor\\none as a “legal issue,” is misplaced. 377 F.3d 522, 532 (6th Cir. 2004). Needless to say, it is the\\nmajority opinion in Weary that binds this Court, including myself, no matter what is said in the\\ndissent.3 See Johnson v. Doodson Ins. Brokerage, LLC, 793 F.3d 674, 677 (6th Cir. 2015). The\\nmajority then cites Ware v. United States, in which this Court distinguished the “facts and\\ncircumstances” of an employment relationship from “the legal meaning and weight that those\\nfacts should be given.” 67 F.3d 574, 576 (6th Cir. 1995). But the “legal meaning” that the\\nDarden factors should be given—i.e., whether Plaintiffs are employees or independents\\ncontractors for purposes of ERISA—and the “legal weight” that the Darden factors should be\\ngiven—i.e., which factors should be relied upon more than others and when—are both\\nundisputedly conclusions of law reviewed de novo. See Trs. of Resilient Floor Decorators Ins.\\nFund v. A&M Installations, Inc., 395 F.3d 244, 249 (6th Cir. 2005); Hi-Tech Video Prods., Inc.\\n\\n\\n 3The majority cites various portions of my dissent in Weary a total of five times throughout its opinion.\\nSuch cherry-picking does nothing to increase the persuasiveness of the majority’s reasoning, particularly to the\\nextent that my dissent is at odds with controlling case law and the subsequent published decisions of this Court.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\nv. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 58 F.3d 1093, 1096 (6th Cir. 1995). Thus, the majority’s reliance\\nupon Ware misses the point. That case says nothing about the existence and degree of each\\nDarden factor, a distinct, factual determination that should be reviewed for clear error.\\n\\n The procedural posture of this case may help explain the difficulty with the majority’s\\nreasoning. Because this is an interlocutory appeal, we “have no authority to review the district\\ncourt’s findings of fact.” Northwestern Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d\\n1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2001). Consequently, a holding that the district court’s determinations\\nregarding the existence and degree of each Darden factor are findings of fact to be reviewed for\\nclear error would, in this case, preclude any review of such determinations, and diminish the\\nmajority’s ability to reverse a decision that the majority believes goes against the weight of\\nauthority.\\n\\n III. Analysis of Darden Factors One and Eight\\n\\n Even assuming arguendo that district court determinations regarding the existence and\\ndegree of each Darden factor constitute applications of law to fact that we have authority to\\nreview in this case, the majority incorrectly analyzes Darden factors one and eight, the only two\\nfactors on which the majority disagrees with the district court’s analysis.\\n\\n Darden factor one is “the skill required”—here, of an insurance agent. Darden, 503 U.S.\\nat 323–24. And “the sale of insurance is a ‘highly specialized field,’ requiring considerable\\n‘training,’ ‘education,’ and ‘skill.’” Weary, 377 F.3d at 527 (quotation omitted). However, that\\nis not the end of the inquiry. Because “‘skills are not the monopoly of independent\\ncontractors’ . . . [i]t is also important to ask how the worker acquired his skill.” Keller v. Miri\\nMicrosystems, LLC, 781 F.3d 799, 809 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Sec’y of Labor v. Laurtizen,\\n835 F.2d 1529, 1537 (6th Cir. 1987)).4 “[If] the company provides all workers with the skills\\nnecessary to perform the job, then that weighs in favor of finding that the worker is\\nindistinguishable from an employee.” Id. Accordingly, in Keller, this Court held that there was\\n\\n 4The Seventh Circuit has also recognized the importance of this question. See Equal Emp’t Opportunity\\nComm’n v. N. Knox Sch. Corp., 154 F.3d 744, 747 (7th Cir. 1998) (explaining that the Seventh Circuit’s Knight\\nfactors, in which the Darden factors are “subsumed,” include “the kind of occupation and nature of skill required,\\nincluding whether skills are obtained in the workplace”) (emphasis added).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\na genuine issue of material fact regarding the skill required of the plaintiff because “[the\\ndefendant] provided [the plaintiff] with the critical training necessary to do the work.” Id.\\n\\n It is undisputed that the same is true in this case. The district court found that\\n“[Defendants] almost always hired untrained, and often unlicensed, agents and provided all the\\ntraining they needed to be an American Family agent.” (RE 320, PageID # 20972.) In fact, they\\n“preferred to hire untrained agents so that they could be trained in the ‘American Family’ way.”\\n(Id. at PageID # 20972–73.) And “[i]f an agent had worked for a different company prior to\\nbeing hired at American Family, they were re-trained in the ways of American Family agents\\nupon hire.” (Id. at PageID # 20973–74.) Thus, because “the company provide[d] all workers\\nwith the skills necessary to perform the job,” the district court was correct in its determination\\nthat Darden factor one supports the status of Plaintiffs as employees. Keller, 781 F.3d at 809.\\n\\n The majority’s contrary holding—that “this factor [weighs] in favor of independent\\ncontractor status”—is again undermined by the cases on which it purports to rely. The majority\\nreasons that “[t]he first factor under Darden looks to ‘whether the skill is an independent\\ndiscipline (or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was) learned\\nelsewhere,’” and that the skill of an insurance agent “could be” learned elsewhere, but in doing\\nso relies solely on the dissent in Weary.5 And the dissent in Weary glaringly conflicts with this\\nCourt’s subsequent decision in Keller, in which this Court clearly stated that “[if] the company\\nprovides all workers with the skills necessary to perform the job,” Darden factor one supports\\nemployee status. Keller, 781 F.3d at 809. Whether those skills could have been learned\\nelsewhere is irrelevant, and the majority’s holding to the contrary flies in the face of binding\\nprecedent.\\n\\n Darden factor eight is “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants.” Darden,\\n503 U.S. at 323–24. The greater the role that the hired party plays, the more this factor supports\\n\\n\\n 5The majority also cites this Court’s unpublished decision in Janette, which quoted the same passage from\\nthe dissent in Weary. However, this Court in Janette cited that passage as though it were from the majority in\\nWeary, failing to indicate “(Clay, J., dissenting)” after its pincite. See 298 F. App’x at 474. Thus, it is possible if\\nnot likely that this Court in Janette mistakenly believed it was quoting binding precedent as opposed to a non-\\nbinding dissent. Regardless, Janette itself is an unpublished and therefore non-binding decision. See United States\\nv. Yates, 886 F.3d 723, 728 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nindependent contractor status, and the greater the role that the hiring party plays, the more this\\nfactor supports employee status. Weary, 377 F.3d at 527.\\n\\n In this case, the district court found that Plaintiffs “ha[d] primary authority to hire and\\nfire their staff,” but not “sole discretion” in doing so, and that they “ha[d] sole discretion in staff\\ncompensation matters.” (RE 320, PageID # 20979.) Specifically, the district court found that\\nDefendants played a role in hiring and firing Plaintiffs’ staff (1) by “impos[ing] qualifications”\\non them, “including licensure, clean driving records, education levels, credit history, and\\nminimum income to debt ratios;” (2) by requiring Plaintiffs’ staff “to agree to a life-time non-\\nsolicitation agreement;” and (3) by “retain[ing] some authority to approve or disapprove\\nof . . . agency staff selections, above and beyond the imposition of [these] qualification\\nrequirements.” (Id.) This role included the ability of Defendants, without the consent of\\nPlaintiffs, to “fire any agency staff . . . who did not live up to the American Family Code of\\nConduct.” (Id.) Based on these facts, the district court determined Darden factor eight to be\\n“neutral.” (Id. at PageID # 20980.) I believe that Darden factor eight actually supports the\\nstatus of Plaintiffs as employees.\\n\\n The majority’s contrary holding, that the district court necessarily should have\\ndetermined that Darden factor eight supported independent contractor status because it found\\nthat Plaintiffs had “primary authority” over hiring and paying assistants, notably lacks any\\nsupporting authority. The majority cites only this Court’s unpublished decision in Janette, in\\nwhich this Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she had “no hiring authority” because she\\n“could have hired assistants.” 298 F. App’x at 475. No role of the defendant in hiring and\\npaying the plaintiff’s assistants was discussed in that case, and it is thus inapposite.\\n\\n The majority seems to ultimately rest its argument on its reading of the phrase “primary\\nauthority.” But “primary” does not necessarily mean more than anyone else; rather, it also\\nmeans first in time. See, e.g., Primary, Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com/ (last\\nvisited December 21, 2018) (“Occurring or existing first in a sequence of events . . . .”); Primary,\\nMerriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ (last visited December 21,\\n2018) (“[F]irst in order of time or development.”). And such usage by the district court when it\\nfound that Plaintiffs had “primary authority over hiring and paying assistants” would be entirely\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\nconsistent with the facts of this case, because Defendants retained “some authority to approve or\\ndisapprove” or to “override” an agent’s staff selections after they had been made. (RE 320,\\nPageID # 20979–80.)\\n\\n IV. Weight to be Afforded the Darden Factors\\n\\n As previously discussed, “the crux of the Darden common law agency test is the hiring\\nparty’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished.” Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525. Accordingly, “this Court has repeatedly held that the employer’s ability to\\ncontrol job performance and the employment opportunities of the aggrieved individual are the\\nmost important of the many factors to be considered.” Marie v. Am. Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344,\\n357 (6th Cir. 2014). In contrast, contractual labels assigned by the parties, while “certainly\\nrelevant,” Weary, 377 F.3d at 525, are less important. See, e.g., Keller, 781 F.3d at 804\\n(“[W]e must look to see whether a worker, even when labeled as an ‘independent contractor,’ is,\\nas a matter of ‘economic reality,’ an employee.”); Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch., Inc.,\\n642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Whether an employment relationship exists under a given set\\nof circumstances is not fixed by labels that parties may attach to their relationship . . . .”).\\n\\n Recognizing this hierarchy of the Darden factors, the district court found that\\n“[Defendants] and [their] agents entered into Agent Agreements . . . indicat[ing] that the parties\\nintended for [the] agents to be treated as independent contractors.” (RE 320, PageID # 20971–\\n72.) However, the district court also found that “[o]ther internal documents . . . indicate that\\n[Defendants] expected [their] sales managers to exercise control over agents’ methods and\\nmanner of performing their services.” (Id. at PageID # 20972.) For instance, “[Defendants’]\\ntraining manuals actually refer to agents as ‘employees.’” (Id. at PageID # 20983.) The district\\ncourt then analyzed the remaining Darden factors, and determined that they were “almost evenly\\nsplit between favoring employee status and favoring independent contractor status.” (Id.). As a\\nresult, the district court turned back to “the most important of the many factors to be\\nconsidered”—“[t]he employer’s ability to control job performance and the employment\\nopportunities of the aggrieved individual.” (Id. at PageID # 20982.) (quoting Marie, 771 F.3d at\\n357).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\n The district court listed the numerous ways in which Defendants had the ability to control\\nand did control Plaintiffs’ job performance and employment opportunities. These include, but\\nare not limited to, the following: (1) Plaintiffs did not own a book of business; (2) Plaintiffs did\\nnot own any policies; (3) Defendants unilaterally reassigned policies brought in by one agent to\\nothers; (4) Defendants could require Plaintiffs to service policies that they did not initiate,\\nwithout any compensation; (5) Defendants did not allow Plaintiffs to sell insurance from other\\ncompanies not financially connected to Defendants; (6) Defendants actively discouraged and in\\nsome cases prohibited Plaintiffs from taking on other employment, even if it was unrelated to\\ninsurances sales; (7) Defendants required Plaintiffs to sign a one-year non-compete agreement,\\nand required Plaintiffs’ staff to sign a lifetime non-compete agreement; and (8) Defendants\\ntrained their sales managers to believe they were Plaintiffs’ bosses and had the authority to\\ndemand Plaintiffs’ compliance—a belief which many acted upon. On these facts, and in\\naccordance with this analysis, I agree with the district court that Plaintiffs are employees for\\npurposes of ERISA.\\n\\n The majority’s holding to the contrary—that Plaintiffs are independent contractors for\\npurposes of ERISA—is again undermined by the cases on which it purports to rely. The\\nmajority first reasons that “[b]ecause ERISA cases focus on the financial benefits that a company\\nshould have provided . . . the Darden factors that most pertain to financial structure . . . carry\\nmore weight,” as opposed to the employer’s ability to control job performance and the\\nemployment opportunities of the aggrieved individual. But in doing so, the majority relies solely\\non this Court’s decision in Ware, in which this Court stated that “the relative weight given each\\n[Darden] factor may differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” 67 F.3d at\\n578. This Court in Ware then elaborated that the traditionally important control factors are\\n“more relevant in the context of copyright ownership.” Id. While it also noted that the reverse\\nmay be true in the ERISA context—that the traditionally important control factors may be “less\\nimportant,” id.—such speculation was merely dicta, as Ware exclusively concerned employment\\nstatus in the copyright ownership context, and had nothing to do with ERISA. See United States\\nv. Hardin, 539 F.3d 404, 411 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that language in a prior decision was dicta\\nbecause it “was not necessary to the determination of the issue on appeal”). And “one panel of\\nthis [C]ourt is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion.” United States v.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\nBurroughs, 5 F.3d 192, 194 (6th Cir. 1993). Moreover, this characterization of the speculation\\nabout ERISA in Ware is further supported by this Court’s decision in Simpson v. Ernst & Young,\\nan ERISA case decided the year after Ware, in which this Court reaffirmed “the employer’s\\nability to control job performance and employment opportunities of the aggrieved individual as\\nthe most important of many elements to be evaluated” when determining that individual’s\\nemployment status. 100 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 1996).\\n\\n The majority also reasons that the district court “should have considered the parties’\\nexpress agreement to be of greater force.” As briefly discussed above, this reasoning is\\nunpersuasive because the district court properly considered the Agent Agreements as relevant but\\nnot dispositive evidence of independent contractor status. No greater consideration was\\nwarranted, particularly given that the language in the Agent Agreements is contradicted by\\nlanguage in other internal documents, including Defendants’ training manuals, and that\\ncontractual labels are particularly susceptible to manipulation such that over-reliance on them\\nwould “defeat the purpose” of ERISA. Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co., 338 F.3d 557, 575 (6th\\nCir. 2003); see also Commodity Futures Trading Com’n v. Erskine, 512 F.3d 309, 318 (6th Cir.\\n2008).\\n\\n For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4362668/\", \"author_raw\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BOGGS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BOGGS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":4,"string":"4"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585415/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Walid JAMMAL ; Kathleen Tuersley; Cinda J. Durachinsky; Nathan Garrett, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; American Family Mutual Insurance Company; American Family Life Insurance Company; American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin; American Family Termination Benefits Plan; Retirement Plan for Employees of American Family Insurance Group; American Family 401K Plan; Group Life Plan ; Group Health Plan; Group Dental Plan ; Long Term Disability Plan; American Family Insurance Group Master Retirement Trust; 401K Plan Administrative Committee; Committee of Employees and District Manager Retirement Plan, Defendants-Appellants.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-29\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0012p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n WALID JAMMAL; KATHLEEN TUERSLEY; CINDA J. ┐\n DURACHINSKY; NATHAN GARRETT, │\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\n │\n │\n v. > No. 17-4125\n │\n │\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\n FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\n FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\n STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN; │\n AMERICAN FAMILY TERMINATION BENEFITS PLAN; │\n RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN │\n FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP; AMERICAN FAMILY 401K │\n PLAN; GROUP LIFE PLAN; GROUP HEALTH PLAN; │\n GROUP DENTAL PLAN; LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; │\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP MASTER │\n RETIREMENT TRUST; 401K PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE │\n COMMITTEE; COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES AND DISTRICT │\n MANAGER RETIREMENT PLAN, │\n Defendants-Appellants. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\n No. 1:13-cv-00437—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.\n\n Argued: July 31, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: January 29, 2019\n\n Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Pierre H. Bergeron, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for\nAppellants. Charles J. Crueger, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, for\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 2\n\n\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Pierre H. Bergeron, Lauren S. Kuley, Scott W. Coyle, Colter Paulson,\nSQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gregory V. Mersol, Gilbert Brosky,\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Charles J. Crueger, Erin K.\nDickinson, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, Gregory F. Coleman,\nGREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Knoxville, Tennessee, Edward A. Wallace, Kara A. Elgersma,\nWEXLER WALLACE LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Drew T. Legando, LANDSKRONER GRIECO\nMERRIMAN, LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. J. Philip Calabrese, PORTER WRIGHT\nMORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, C. Darcy Copeland Jalandoni, PORTER\nWRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Shay Dvoretzky, JONES DAY,\nWashington, D.C., Paulo B. McKeeby, Ronald E. Manthey, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS\nLLP, Dallas, Texas, Mary Ellen Signorille, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Washington,\nD.C., Seth R. Lesser, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Rye Brook, New York, for Amici\nCuriae.\n\n BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined. CLAY, J.\n(pp. 16–25), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In this class action, the named plaintiffs represent several\nthousand current and former insurance agents for American Family Insurance Company and its\naffiliates (collectively, “American Family” or “the company”). The agents claim that American\nFamily misclassified them as independent contractors, while treating them as employees, in order\nto avoid paying them benefits in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act\nof 1974 (“ERISA”).\n\n The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal concerns the nature of the parties’ legal\nrelationship: are the plaintiffs employees or independent contractors for American Family? The\ncompany appeals the district court’s judgment that the plaintiffs are employees. Because\nAmerican Family properly classified its agents as independent contractors, we reverse.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 3\n\n\n I\n\n As with many insurance companies, American Family sells its products primarily through\na network of insurance agents. American Family, in keeping with common industry practice,\nclassifies its agents as independent contractors rather than employees.\n\n Taking issue with this designation and the consequences it has on their ability to enjoy\nthe protections of ERISA, the plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against American Family\nin 2013, alleging that the company misclassified them as independent contractors. The plaintiffs\ncontended that their miscategorization “deprived [them] of the rights and protections guaranteed\nby state and federal law to employees, including their rights under ERISA.” They sought, inter\nalia, a declaratory judgment that they are employees for all purposes, including but not limited to\nERISA, and that as employees they are due benefits under ERISA.\n\n Both parties filed several pre-trial motions, including motions by American Family to\ndismiss and later for summary judgment. The plaintiffs, for their part, moved for class\ncertification. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied each of American\nFamily’s motions in whole or in part. The company sought permission from this court to appeal\nthe district court’s order granting class certification, but we denied the company’s request. The\ndistrict court subsequently denied two motions by American Family to decertify the class.\n\n The case then proceeded to trial, which the district court bifurcated to allow for\ndetermination of the threshold question of the plaintiffs’ employment status. Trial of this single\nissue took place before an advisory jury, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1),\nwhich permits district courts to “try any issue with an advisory jury” in an action that is “not\ntriable of right by a jury.”1\n\n During the twelve-day trial, the jury learned that the parties took many steps to structure\ntheir relationship consistent with American Family’s position that its agents are independent\ncontractors. Most pointedly, at the outset of the agents’ tenure with the company, all agents\n\n\n 1Plaintiffsseeking relief under ERISA generally have no right to have their claims decided by a jury. See,\ne.g., Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., 150 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998); Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.,\n123 F.3d 877, 882–83 (6th Cir. 1997); Bair v. Gen. Motors Corp., 895 F.2d 1094, 1096–97 (6th Cir. 1990).\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 4\n\n\nsigned a written agreement stating that they were independent contractors rather than employees.\nIn keeping with this designation, the agents file their taxes as independent contractors and deduct\ntheir business expenses as self-employed business owners. American Family also pays its agents\nin commissions and does not provide them with vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, or paid time\noff.\n\n Moreover, as the district court recounted, “[t]he company calls its agents ‘business\nowners’ and ‘partners’ and tells new agents they will be ‘agency business’ owners and that they\nneed to ‘invest’ in ‘their business.’” The agents work out of their own offices, set their own\nhours, and hire and pay their own staff. They also are responsible for providing most of the\nresources necessary to run their agencies, such as office furniture and office supplies.\n\n But the plaintiffs also presented significant evidence to support their claim that American\nFamily treats them more like employees than independent partners and business owners. The\ncompany classifies everyone in its sales force—other than its agents—as employees.\nNevertheless, the company’s training manuals refer to the agents as “employees.” Each agent\nmust report to an Agency Sales Manager, and the plaintiffs presented testimony that American\nFamily did not train these managers to treat the agents as independent contractors or even make\nthe managers aware that the agents were classified as such.\n\n According to the plaintiffs, the managers exerted a great amount of control over their\nday-to-day activities. The managers insisted, among other required tasks, that the agents\ncomplete daily activity reports, prioritize selling certain insurance policies, and participate in\n“life-call” nights in which the agents had to stay after normal business hours to solicit life\ninsurance by calling prospective customers. The plaintiffs also offered testimony that the\ncompany retained some authority to approve or disapprove of the location of the agents’ offices\nand to be involved in the hiring and firing of the agents’ staff in a way that limited the plaintiffs’\nability to run their own agencies.\n\n The jury also heard testimony that American Family teaches agents everything they need\nto know to become licensed, run an agency, and sell the company’s products. All agents attend a\ntwo-to-three-month-long comprehensive training program run by American Family on how to\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 5\n\n\nsell insurance and how to operate an agency. Once hired, the agents must sell insurance\nexclusively for American Family, and they are discouraged—but not forbidden—from taking\nother work, even if it is unrelated to the insurance industry. There is no limit on the duration of\nthe agency relationship, and American Family describes the agency position as a career position.\nAlthough the agents are not eligible for the same pension or retirement plans given to the\ncompany’s employees, they are offered an “extended earnings” benefit that is described to them\nas a retirement plan.2 When and if their relationship with the company does come to an end, the\nagents are prohibited for a year from soliciting business from any of their former American\nFamily customers. And unlike most business owners, the agents cannot sell their agencies or\nassign any rights to income from their agencies.\n\n At the close of the trial, the court presented the advisory jury with the following\ninterrogatory:\n\n Please answer the following question “yes” or “no” according to your findings:\n Did Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are employees\n of Defendant American Family?\n\nThe jury answered “yes.”\n\n After giving the parties a final opportunity to present their proposed findings of fact and\nconclusions of law, the court issued an opinion in which it acknowledged that although it was not\nbound by the advisory jury’s determination, it believed that the jury’s verdict “comport[ed] with\nthe weight of the evidence presented at trial.” Accordingly, the district court determined that the\nagents were employees for the purposes of ERISA.\n\n The district court certified its ruling for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1292(b), and American Family filed a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order.\n\n\n\n\n 2The “extended earnings” program offered a lifetime annuity to agents and was reported as one of\nAmerican Family’s “Defined Benefit Plans” in its annual statement filed with insurance regulators. Agents were\nautomatically enrolled in these plans, did not contribute to these plans, and received increasing benefits with\nincreasing years of service.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 6\n\n\nWe granted permission to appeal, which American Family did, arguing that the district court\nerred in determining that the plaintiffs are employees.3\n\n II\n\n A\n\n The determination of whether a plaintiff qualifies as an employee under ERISA is a\nmixed question of law and fact that a judge normally can make as a matter of law. See Weary v.\nCochran, 377 F.3d 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2004); Waxman v. Luna, 881 F.2d 237, 240 (6th Cir.\n1989). After a bench trial to determine a plaintiff’s employment status, this court typically\nreviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including its\nultimate decision about the plaintiff’s status, de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch.,\nInc., 642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011). However, “[o]n interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\n1292(b), our review is limited to the district court’s conclusions of law.” Sheet Metal Emp’rs\nIndus. Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co., 830 F.3d 358, 361 (6th Cir. 2016). We review\nthose conclusions de novo, but “we have no authority to review the district court’s findings of\nfact.” Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2001).\n\n “ERISA is a comprehensive statute designed to promote the interests of employees and\ntheir beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983).\nThe plaintiffs brought this action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), which enables “participant[s]” in an\nemployee benefit plan to enforce ERISA’s substantive provisions. Under ERISA, a “participant”\nis “any employee or former employee of an employer . . . who is or may become eligible to\nreceive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such\nemployer.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). Therefore, the plaintiffs can prevail on their ERISA claims\nonly if they can show that they were American Family’s employees. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.\nDarden, 503 U.S. 318, 321 (1992).\n\n ERISA defines an “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C.\n§ 1002(6). An “employer,” in turn, “means any person acting directly as an employer, or\n\n 3The company also contends that the court’s determination was erroneous because it relied on non-\nrepresentative class evidence. Because we decide the case on other grounds, we do not reach this issue.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 7\n\n\nindirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan.” § 1002(5).\nBecause these definitions provide little guidance as to the meaning of “employee,” “the Supreme\nCourt has instructed courts to interpret the term by ‘incorporating the common law of agency.’”\nBryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 656 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting\nWare v. United States, 67 F.3d 574, 576 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Darden, 503 U.S. at 322–24)).\n\n In Darden, the Supreme Court provided the following standard “for determining who\nqualifies as an ‘employee’ under ERISA.” 503 U.S. at 323.\n\n In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common\n law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and\n means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to\n this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the\n location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether\n the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the\n extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method\n of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the\n work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is\n in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired\n party.\n\nId. at 323–24 (quoting Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751–52 (1989)).\nIn addition to these factors (“the Darden factors”), we have held that an express agreement\nbetween the parties concerning employment status is also a relevant consideration. See Weary,\n377 F.3d at 525.\n\n The “crux of Darden’s common law agency test is ‘the hiring party’s right to control the\nmanner and means by which the product is accomplished.’” Ibid. (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at\n323). Thus, “our analysis of [the Darden] factors . . . reflects upon, and is relevant to, this core\nissue of control.” Ibid. “[T]he relative weight given each factor may differ depending upon the\nlegal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. “Notwithstanding this recognition\nthat certain factors may deserve added weight in some contexts, a court must evaluate all of the\nincidents of the employment relationship.” Ibid.; see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (“Since the\ncommon-law test contains ‘no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the\nanswer, . . . all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 8\n\n\nfactor being decisive.’” (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S.\n254, 258 (1968)).\n\n Applying the test from Darden and its progeny, the district court determined that the\nplaintiffs were employees rather than independent contractors. After deciding that the Darden\nfactors were “almost evenly split between favoring employee status and favoring independent\ncontractor status,” the court proceeded to a broader analysis of the level of control that American\nFamily exercised over its agents. Ultimately, the court concluded that “[t]he degree of control\nmanagers were encouraged to exercise was inconsistent with independent contractor status and\nwas more in line with the level of control a manager would be expected to exert over an\nemployee.” This, along with the evidence related to the other Darden factors, led the court to\ndetermine that the plaintiffs were employees during the relevant class period.\n\n B\n\n Since in this interlocutory appeal we may review only the district court’s conclusions of\nlaw, we must first decide which of the court’s determinations were matters of law and which\nwere factual. This much is clear: the district court’s findings underlying its holding on each of\nthe Darden factors are factual findings, and the court’s ultimate conclusion as to whether the\nplaintiffs were employees is a question of law.\n\n But what of the court’s conclusions about the Darden factors—both of their existence\nand of the weight to be assigned them? Are these factual findings or conclusions of law?\nAlthough neither party has provided much briefing on this question, the plaintiffs suggest that\nthese are issues of fact, while American Family claims that they are issues of law. The parties’\ndispute is understandable, as we have yet to clarify whether and to what extent a court’s\nconclusions about the individual factors that make up the Darden standard are factual or legal in\nnature. Indeed, some of our decisions seem to be in tension with one another, with some\nindicating that a district court’s determinations on the Darden factors are factual findings, see\nPeno Trucking, Inc. v. C.I.R., 296 F. App’x 449, 454–60 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating, first, that the\nappropriate rule is to review factual findings for clear error and, second, that the Tax Court’s\nfindings about control and other factors were not clearly erroneous); Moore v. Lafayette Life Ins.,\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 9\n\n\n458 F.3d 416, 440 (6th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court’s findings on Darden factors\nwere not clearly erroneous), and others suggesting that they are legal conclusions, see Janette v.\nAm. Fid. Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App’x 467, 473–74 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing the proper tests for the\ncontrol factor and skill-required factor); Weary, 377 F.3d at 526 (explaining that a certain degree\nof limited authority is not the type of control that establishes an employer-employee\nrelationship); id. at 532 (arguing that the majority erred in defining the skill-required factor and\nexplaining what the “legal issue” is concerning that factor) (Clay, J., dissenting).\n\n Other circuits, however, have explicitly considered this question and have come down on\nthe side of treating these as factual matters subject to review for clear error. According to our\nsister circuits:\n\n The existence and degree of each factor is a question of fact while the legal\n conclusion to be drawn from those facts—whether workers are employees or\n independent contractors—is a question of law. Thus, a district court’s findings as\n to the underlying factors must be accepted unless clearly erroneous, while review\n of the ultimate question of employment status is de novo.\n\nBrock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1988) (applying multi-factor\n“economic reality” test to claim under FLSA); Berger Transfer & Storage v. Cent. States, Se.\nand Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir. 1996); Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d\n802, 805 (10th Cir. 1989).\n\n Granting due weight to our own and our sister circuits’ jurisprudence, we do not agree\nthat a district court’s conclusion relating to the existence and degree of each Darden factor is\nentirely a question of fact. There is a distinction between a lower court’s factual findings, which\nwe review for clear error, and “the district court’s application of the legal standard to them,”\nwhich we review de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School, Inc., 642 F.3d 518, 522\n(6th Cir. 2011). The lower court’s determination of a Darden factor often necessarily involves\nthe application of a legal standard to particular factual findings. Take, for example, Darden’s\nfirst factor: “[W]hether the skill [required of an agent] is an independent discipline\n(or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was) learned elsewhere.”\nWeary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 323. As Judge Clay\nobserved in his dissent in Weary, there is a “legal issue” inherent in the first factor as to whether\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 10\n\n\nto consider “the amount of skill required” or rather “whether the skill is an independent\ndiscipline (or profession) that is separate from the business.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J.,\ndissenting). Each Darden factor is thus itself a “legal standard” that the district court is applying\nto the facts. See also Ware, 67 F.3d at 576 (distinguishing the “facts and circumstances”\nunderlying the Darden factors from both “the legal meaning and weight that those facts should\nbe given individually and in the aggregate”) (emphasis added). It is therefore appropriate for us\nto review de novo those determinations to the extent that they involve the application of a legal\nstandard to a set of facts.\n\n What’s more, as we recognized in Ware, “the relative weight given to each [Darden]\nfactor may differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Id. at 578 (emphasis\nadded). Thus, for example, “a hiring party’s control is more relevant in the context of copyright\nownership, because the statute assigns ownership on the basis of authorship unless the parties\nexplicitly agree otherwise,” but “less important in an ERISA context.” Ibid. This implies that\ncertain factors may carry more or less weight depending on the particular legal context in which\nthe independent-contractor relationship is being determined. Ibid. (noting that the “same test\nmight produce disparate results in different contexts”). Accordingly, it is also appropriate for us\nto review de novo the district court’s weight assigned to of each of the Darden factors, given the\nlegal context in which the claim has been brought.\n\n III\n\n A\n\n Here, the district court incorrectly applied the legal standards in determining the\nexistence of the Darden factors relating to (1) the skill required of an agent and (2) the hiring and\npaying of assistants. Had the court applied those standards properly, it would have found that\nthose factors actually favored independent-contractor status. We analyze each of those factors\nbelow.4\n\n\n\n 4Since we do not find that the district court applied an improper legal standard to any of the other Darden\nfactors, we do not address them here.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 11\n\n\n The first factor under Darden looks to “whether the skill [required of an agent] is an\nindependent discipline (or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was)\nlearned elsewhere.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Janette, 298 F. App’x\nat 474. The district court held that the “amount of skill” factor under Darden weighs “slightly in\nfavor of employee status” primarily on the basis that American Family “sought out potential\nagents who were untrained.” In doing so, the district court erred.\n\n This circuit has previously held that the skill required of insurance agents weighs in favor\nof independent-contractor status because “the sale of insurance is a highly specialized field” that\nrequires “considerable training, education, and skill.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 526–27 (internal\nquotations omitted). The skill inquiry centers on whether the skill is an independent discipline\nthat “could be” learned elsewhere. Id. at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting). Though American Family\npreferred hiring untrained, and often unlicensed, agents, the underlying discipline of selling\ninsurance remains the same regardless of American Family’s hiring preferences. Ibid.\n(“[B]ecause the skill of selling insurance is a general one, the majority may be correct in its\nconclusion that this factor favors independent contractor status.”). The district court therefore\nmisapplied the legal standard to the facts; the correct application would have weighed this factor\nin favor of independent contractor status, as this circuit has done previously.\n\n Darden’s eighth factor examines “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants.”\nDarden, 503 U.S. at 323–24. The court mistakenly weighed this factor as “neutral” after\nconcluding that the agents “had primary authority to hire their own staff” and were solely\nresponsible for all “staff compensation matters.”\n\n The district court found, as a factual matter, that American Family agents were\nresponsible for paying their own staff, determining and paying for any benefits and taxes\nassociated with that staff, and deciding whether to classify their staff as employees or\nindependent contractors. While American Family provided “pre-approved” candidates, whom\nthe agents could select as their staff, it did not require the agents to hire these pre-screened\ncandidates. Agents also had sole discretion in staff-compensation matters and the sole\nresponsibility to withhold and remit taxes to the federal government as the employers of their\nstaff.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 12\n\n\n On the other hand, American Family imposed qualifications on appointed agency staff,\nincluding state licensure, clean driving records, education levels, credit history, and minimum\nincome-to-debt ratios. American Family did not provide computer access to any non-approved\nappointed agency staff and required agency staff to agree to a lifetime non-solicitation\nagreement. American Family had the right to fire any agency staff, appointed or non-appointed,\nwho did not live up to the American Family Code of Conduct, and it retained the right, although\nrarely exercised, to fire agency staff for any reason. American Family managers were also\nevaluated on the number of staff employed by their agents and would sometimes offer monetary\nsubsidies to agents to hire more staff.\n\n Considering all of these facts, the district court determined that “[a]lthough American\nFamily retained some right to override an agent’s hiring and firing decision, on balance, agents\nhad primary authority over hiring and paying their assistants.” Yet the court inexplicably\nconcluded from that finding that the factor was “neutral.” This conclusion was contrary to\nDarden’s language. If the hired party has the “primary authority over hiring and paying its own\nassistants,” the Darden factor regarding “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants”\nshould weigh in favor of independent-contractor status. Janette, 298 F. App’x at 475–76\n(Because plaintiff “could have hired assistants, at her expense,” the factor favored independent-\ncontractor status.). Any other conclusion conflicts with Darden’s clear language.\n\n B\n\n Further, given our determination regarding the existence of each of the Darden factors,5\nthe district court also erred by not properly weighing those factors that are particularly significant\nin the legal context of ERISA eligibility. Darden asks us to look at the “hiring party’s right to\ncontrol the manner and means by which the product is accomplished,” which we have\ndetermined to be “a broad consideration that is embodied in many of the specific factors\narticulated” there. Weary, 377 F.3d at 525. But “the relative weight given each [Darden] factor\nmay differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. In\nparticular, “control and supervision is less important in an ERISA context, where a court is\n\n 5That is to say, whether each Darden factor favors independent-contractor or employee status.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 13\n\n\ndetermining whether an employer has assumed responsibility for a person’s pension status.”\nIbid. Because ERISA cases focus on the financial benefits that a company should have provided,\nthe financial structure of the company-agent relationship guides the inquiry. Here, the Darden\nfactors that most pertain to that financial structure favor independent-contractor status and,\naccordingly, carry more weight in the ERISA context.\n\n In this case, the district court found that the insurance agents invested heavily in their\noffices and instrumentalities, paid rent and worked out of their own offices, earned commissions\non sales, were not eligible for employment benefits, and paid taxes as independent contractors.\nAccordingly, the court weighed factors two (the source of the instrumentalities and tools), three\n(the location of the work), seven (method of payment), eleven (provision of employee benefits),\nand twelve (tax treatment) in favor of independent-contractor status.6 We have now corrected\nthe district court’s weighing of factors one (the skill required) and eight (the hired party’s role in\nhiring and paying assistants) to favor independent-contractor status, as well. Because this\ninquiry exists in the legal context of ERISA benefits, this collection of factors—particularly the\nones relating to the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the method of payment, the\nprovision of employee benefits, and the agents’ tax treatment—is especially important in\ndetermining the parties’ financial structure. Accordingly, these factors should have carried\ngreater weight in the district court’s final analysis. Had the court properly weighed those factors\nin accordance with their significance, it would have determined that the entire mix of Darden\nfactors favored independent-contractor status.\n\n As further evidence of the financial structure of the parties’ relationship, the lower court\nshould have also given greater weight to the parties’ express agreement. In determining the\nparties’ relationship in the Darden context, we have several times “look[ed] to any express\nagreement between the parties as to their status as it is the best evidence of their intent” and\nplaced great weight on that agreement. Janette, 298 F. App’x. at 471; Weary, 377 F.3d at 525\n(noting that the existence of a contract characterizing Weary as an independent contractor is\n\n\n 6The district court weighed the “method of payment” factor in favor of independent-contractor status for\nagents “once they began selling policies out of their own office.” During the agents’ “training period,” the court\nweighed the factor in favor of employee status.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 14\n\n\n“certainly relevant to the inquiry” and shows “how the parties themselves viewed the nature of\ntheir working relationship”). Our sister circuits have adopted this approach, as well. See Brown\nv. J. Kaz., Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that an independent-contractor\nagreement “is strong evidence” of independent-contractor status); Schwieger v. Farm Bureau\nIns. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir. 2000) (same). A written contract shows “how the\nparties themselves viewed the nature of their working relationship” and therefore carries great—\nbut not dispositive—weight in determining an independent-contractor relationship. Weary,\n377 F.3d at 525.\n\n The Agent Agreement governing the parties’ business relationship here indicates that\nthey structured their relationship so that the agents should be treated as independent contractors.\nEach Agreement contained a paragraph either identical to or substantively similar to the\nfollowing:\n\n It is the intent of the parties hereto that you are not an employee of the Company\n for any purpose, but are an independent contractor for all purposes, including\n federal taxation with full control of your activities and the right to exercise\n independent judgment as to time, place and manner of soliciting insurance,\n servicing policyholders and otherwise carrying out the provisions of this\n agreement. As an independent contractor you are responsible for your self-\n employment taxes and are not eligible for various employee benefits such as\n Workers and Unemployment Compensation.\n\nThe Agreement also provides that:\n\n Rates, rules, regulations and all provisions contained in the Company’s Agent’s\n Manuals and all changes to them shall be binding upon you. If any inconsistency\n or ambiguity exists between this agreement and such rate, rule, regulation,\n provision or other statement or statements, whether written or oral, this agreement\n shall control.\n\n(emphasis added). The Agency Agreement therefore states in wholly unambiguous terms that\nagents are independent contractors who retain “full control” over several facets of their business.\n\n The district court correctly recognized that the agreement favored independent-contractor\nstatus. But the court apparently did not weigh this important component when reaching its\nconclusion regarding independent-contractor status. Had the lower court given this express\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 15\n\n\nagreement proper consideration, it would have further swung the balance in favor of\nindependent-contractor status.\n\n IV\n\n This court has time and again declared insurance agents to have employee status—and\nappellees have presented no case in which we have not done so. See, e.g., Weary, 377 F.3d at\n524; Wolcott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 245, 251 (6th Cir. 1989). Some of our sister\ncircuits have in fact already found American Family agents to be independent contractors in\nother contexts. Wortham v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 385 F.3d 1139, 1140–41 (8th Cir. 2004);\nMoore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 90-3107, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13574, *3 (7th Cir.\nJune 25, 1991). The plaintiffs have not shown that the facts here are so radically different from\nthese cases to justify what would be a significant departure from these rulings, especially in the\n“legal context” of ERISA eligibility where we have held that “control and supervision is less\nimportant” than the financial structure of the parties’ relationship. Ware, 67 F.3d at 578.\nAccordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this\nholding.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 16\n\n\n _________________\n\n DISSENT\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Walid JAMMAL ; Kathleen Tuersley; Cinda J. Durachinsky; Nathan Garrett, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; American Family Mutual Insurance Company; American Family Life Insurance Company; American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin; American Family Termination Benefits Plan; Retirement Plan for Employees of American Family Insurance Group; American Family 401K Plan; Group Life Plan ; Group Health Plan; Group Dental Plan ; Long Term Disability Plan; American Family Insurance Group Master Retirement Trust; 401K Plan Administrative Committee; Committee of Employees and District Manager Retirement Plan, Defendants-Appellants.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-29\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0012p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n WALID JAMMAL; KATHLEEN TUERSLEY; CINDA J. ┐\\n DURACHINSKY; NATHAN GARRETT, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > No. 17-4125\\n │\\n │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN; │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY TERMINATION BENEFITS PLAN; │\\n RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP; AMERICAN FAMILY 401K │\\n PLAN; GROUP LIFE PLAN; GROUP HEALTH PLAN; │\\n GROUP DENTAL PLAN; LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP MASTER │\\n RETIREMENT TRUST; 401K PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE │\\n COMMITTEE; COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES AND DISTRICT │\\n MANAGER RETIREMENT PLAN, │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:13-cv-00437—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: July 31, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Pierre H. Bergeron, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for\\nAppellants. Charles J. Crueger, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, for\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Pierre H. Bergeron, Lauren S. Kuley, Scott W. Coyle, Colter Paulson,\\nSQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gregory V. Mersol, Gilbert Brosky,\\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Charles J. Crueger, Erin K.\\nDickinson, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, Gregory F. Coleman,\\nGREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Knoxville, Tennessee, Edward A. Wallace, Kara A. Elgersma,\\nWEXLER WALLACE LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Drew T. Legando, LANDSKRONER GRIECO\\nMERRIMAN, LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. J. Philip Calabrese, PORTER WRIGHT\\nMORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, C. Darcy Copeland Jalandoni, PORTER\\nWRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Shay Dvoretzky, JONES DAY,\\nWashington, D.C., Paulo B. McKeeby, Ronald E. Manthey, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS\\nLLP, Dallas, Texas, Mary Ellen Signorille, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Washington,\\nD.C., Seth R. Lesser, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Rye Brook, New York, for Amici\\nCuriae.\\n\\n BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined. CLAY, J.\\n(pp. 16–25), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In this class action, the named plaintiffs represent several\\nthousand current and former insurance agents for American Family Insurance Company and its\\naffiliates (collectively, “American Family” or “the company”). The agents claim that American\\nFamily misclassified them as independent contractors, while treating them as employees, in order\\nto avoid paying them benefits in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act\\nof 1974 (“ERISA”).\\n\\n The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal concerns the nature of the parties’ legal\\nrelationship: are the plaintiffs employees or independent contractors for American Family? The\\ncompany appeals the district court’s judgment that the plaintiffs are employees. Because\\nAmerican Family properly classified its agents as independent contractors, we reverse.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n I\\n\\n As with many insurance companies, American Family sells its products primarily through\\na network of insurance agents. American Family, in keeping with common industry practice,\\nclassifies its agents as independent contractors rather than employees.\\n\\n Taking issue with this designation and the consequences it has on their ability to enjoy\\nthe protections of ERISA, the plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against American Family\\nin 2013, alleging that the company misclassified them as independent contractors. The plaintiffs\\ncontended that their miscategorization “deprived [them] of the rights and protections guaranteed\\nby state and federal law to employees, including their rights under ERISA.” They sought, inter\\nalia, a declaratory judgment that they are employees for all purposes, including but not limited to\\nERISA, and that as employees they are due benefits under ERISA.\\n\\n Both parties filed several pre-trial motions, including motions by American Family to\\ndismiss and later for summary judgment. The plaintiffs, for their part, moved for class\\ncertification. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied each of American\\nFamily’s motions in whole or in part. The company sought permission from this court to appeal\\nthe district court’s order granting class certification, but we denied the company’s request. The\\ndistrict court subsequently denied two motions by American Family to decertify the class.\\n\\n The case then proceeded to trial, which the district court bifurcated to allow for\\ndetermination of the threshold question of the plaintiffs’ employment status. Trial of this single\\nissue took place before an advisory jury, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1),\\nwhich permits district courts to “try any issue with an advisory jury” in an action that is “not\\ntriable of right by a jury.”1\\n\\n During the twelve-day trial, the jury learned that the parties took many steps to structure\\ntheir relationship consistent with American Family’s position that its agents are independent\\ncontractors. Most pointedly, at the outset of the agents’ tenure with the company, all agents\\n\\n\\n 1Plaintiffsseeking relief under ERISA generally have no right to have their claims decided by a jury. See,\\ne.g., Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., 150 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998); Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.,\\n123 F.3d 877, 882–83 (6th Cir. 1997); Bair v. Gen. Motors Corp., 895 F.2d 1094, 1096–97 (6th Cir. 1990).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nsigned a written agreement stating that they were independent contractors rather than employees.\\nIn keeping with this designation, the agents file their taxes as independent contractors and deduct\\ntheir business expenses as self-employed business owners. American Family also pays its agents\\nin commissions and does not provide them with vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, or paid time\\noff.\\n\\n Moreover, as the district court recounted, “[t]he company calls its agents ‘business\\nowners’ and ‘partners’ and tells new agents they will be ‘agency business’ owners and that they\\nneed to ‘invest’ in ‘their business.’” The agents work out of their own offices, set their own\\nhours, and hire and pay their own staff. They also are responsible for providing most of the\\nresources necessary to run their agencies, such as office furniture and office supplies.\\n\\n But the plaintiffs also presented significant evidence to support their claim that American\\nFamily treats them more like employees than independent partners and business owners. The\\ncompany classifies everyone in its sales force—other than its agents—as employees.\\nNevertheless, the company’s training manuals refer to the agents as “employees.” Each agent\\nmust report to an Agency Sales Manager, and the plaintiffs presented testimony that American\\nFamily did not train these managers to treat the agents as independent contractors or even make\\nthe managers aware that the agents were classified as such.\\n\\n According to the plaintiffs, the managers exerted a great amount of control over their\\nday-to-day activities. The managers insisted, among other required tasks, that the agents\\ncomplete daily activity reports, prioritize selling certain insurance policies, and participate in\\n“life-call” nights in which the agents had to stay after normal business hours to solicit life\\ninsurance by calling prospective customers. The plaintiffs also offered testimony that the\\ncompany retained some authority to approve or disapprove of the location of the agents’ offices\\nand to be involved in the hiring and firing of the agents’ staff in a way that limited the plaintiffs’\\nability to run their own agencies.\\n\\n The jury also heard testimony that American Family teaches agents everything they need\\nto know to become licensed, run an agency, and sell the company’s products. All agents attend a\\ntwo-to-three-month-long comprehensive training program run by American Family on how to\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nsell insurance and how to operate an agency. Once hired, the agents must sell insurance\\nexclusively for American Family, and they are discouraged—but not forbidden—from taking\\nother work, even if it is unrelated to the insurance industry. There is no limit on the duration of\\nthe agency relationship, and American Family describes the agency position as a career position.\\nAlthough the agents are not eligible for the same pension or retirement plans given to the\\ncompany’s employees, they are offered an “extended earnings” benefit that is described to them\\nas a retirement plan.2 When and if their relationship with the company does come to an end, the\\nagents are prohibited for a year from soliciting business from any of their former American\\nFamily customers. And unlike most business owners, the agents cannot sell their agencies or\\nassign any rights to income from their agencies.\\n\\n At the close of the trial, the court presented the advisory jury with the following\\ninterrogatory:\\n\\n Please answer the following question “yes” or “no” according to your findings:\\n Did Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are employees\\n of Defendant American Family?\\n\\nThe jury answered “yes.”\\n\\n After giving the parties a final opportunity to present their proposed findings of fact and\\nconclusions of law, the court issued an opinion in which it acknowledged that although it was not\\nbound by the advisory jury’s determination, it believed that the jury’s verdict “comport[ed] with\\nthe weight of the evidence presented at trial.” Accordingly, the district court determined that the\\nagents were employees for the purposes of ERISA.\\n\\n The district court certified its ruling for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1292(b), and American Family filed a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2The “extended earnings” program offered a lifetime annuity to agents and was reported as one of\\nAmerican Family’s “Defined Benefit Plans” in its annual statement filed with insurance regulators. Agents were\\nautomatically enrolled in these plans, did not contribute to these plans, and received increasing benefits with\\nincreasing years of service.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nWe granted permission to appeal, which American Family did, arguing that the district court\\nerred in determining that the plaintiffs are employees.3\\n\\n II\\n\\n A\\n\\n The determination of whether a plaintiff qualifies as an employee under ERISA is a\\nmixed question of law and fact that a judge normally can make as a matter of law. See Weary v.\\nCochran, 377 F.3d 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2004); Waxman v. Luna, 881 F.2d 237, 240 (6th Cir.\\n1989). After a bench trial to determine a plaintiff’s employment status, this court typically\\nreviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including its\\nultimate decision about the plaintiff’s status, de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch.,\\nInc., 642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011). However, “[o]n interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n1292(b), our review is limited to the district court’s conclusions of law.” Sheet Metal Emp’rs\\nIndus. Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co., 830 F.3d 358, 361 (6th Cir. 2016). We review\\nthose conclusions de novo, but “we have no authority to review the district court’s findings of\\nfact.” Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2001).\\n\\n “ERISA is a comprehensive statute designed to promote the interests of employees and\\ntheir beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983).\\nThe plaintiffs brought this action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), which enables “participant[s]” in an\\nemployee benefit plan to enforce ERISA’s substantive provisions. Under ERISA, a “participant”\\nis “any employee or former employee of an employer . . . who is or may become eligible to\\nreceive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such\\nemployer.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). Therefore, the plaintiffs can prevail on their ERISA claims\\nonly if they can show that they were American Family’s employees. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.\\nDarden, 503 U.S. 318, 321 (1992).\\n\\n ERISA defines an “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 1002(6). An “employer,” in turn, “means any person acting directly as an employer, or\\n\\n 3The company also contends that the court’s determination was erroneous because it relied on non-\\nrepresentative class evidence. Because we decide the case on other grounds, we do not reach this issue.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nindirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan.” § 1002(5).\\nBecause these definitions provide little guidance as to the meaning of “employee,” “the Supreme\\nCourt has instructed courts to interpret the term by ‘incorporating the common law of agency.’”\\nBryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 656 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting\\nWare v. United States, 67 F.3d 574, 576 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Darden, 503 U.S. at 322–24)).\\n\\n In Darden, the Supreme Court provided the following standard “for determining who\\nqualifies as an ‘employee’ under ERISA.” 503 U.S. at 323.\\n\\n In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common\\n law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and\\n means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to\\n this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the\\n location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether\\n the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the\\n extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method\\n of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the\\n work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is\\n in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired\\n party.\\n\\nId. at 323–24 (quoting Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751–52 (1989)).\\nIn addition to these factors (“the Darden factors”), we have held that an express agreement\\nbetween the parties concerning employment status is also a relevant consideration. See Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525.\\n\\n The “crux of Darden’s common law agency test is ‘the hiring party’s right to control the\\nmanner and means by which the product is accomplished.’” Ibid. (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at\\n323). Thus, “our analysis of [the Darden] factors . . . reflects upon, and is relevant to, this core\\nissue of control.” Ibid. “[T]he relative weight given each factor may differ depending upon the\\nlegal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. “Notwithstanding this recognition\\nthat certain factors may deserve added weight in some contexts, a court must evaluate all of the\\nincidents of the employment relationship.” Ibid.; see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (“Since the\\ncommon-law test contains ‘no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the\\nanswer, . . . all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nfactor being decisive.’” (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S.\\n254, 258 (1968)).\\n\\n Applying the test from Darden and its progeny, the district court determined that the\\nplaintiffs were employees rather than independent contractors. After deciding that the Darden\\nfactors were “almost evenly split between favoring employee status and favoring independent\\ncontractor status,” the court proceeded to a broader analysis of the level of control that American\\nFamily exercised over its agents. Ultimately, the court concluded that “[t]he degree of control\\nmanagers were encouraged to exercise was inconsistent with independent contractor status and\\nwas more in line with the level of control a manager would be expected to exert over an\\nemployee.” This, along with the evidence related to the other Darden factors, led the court to\\ndetermine that the plaintiffs were employees during the relevant class period.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Since in this interlocutory appeal we may review only the district court’s conclusions of\\nlaw, we must first decide which of the court’s determinations were matters of law and which\\nwere factual. This much is clear: the district court’s findings underlying its holding on each of\\nthe Darden factors are factual findings, and the court’s ultimate conclusion as to whether the\\nplaintiffs were employees is a question of law.\\n\\n But what of the court’s conclusions about the Darden factors—both of their existence\\nand of the weight to be assigned them? Are these factual findings or conclusions of law?\\nAlthough neither party has provided much briefing on this question, the plaintiffs suggest that\\nthese are issues of fact, while American Family claims that they are issues of law. The parties’\\ndispute is understandable, as we have yet to clarify whether and to what extent a court’s\\nconclusions about the individual factors that make up the Darden standard are factual or legal in\\nnature. Indeed, some of our decisions seem to be in tension with one another, with some\\nindicating that a district court’s determinations on the Darden factors are factual findings, see\\nPeno Trucking, Inc. v. C.I.R., 296 F. App’x 449, 454–60 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating, first, that the\\nappropriate rule is to review factual findings for clear error and, second, that the Tax Court’s\\nfindings about control and other factors were not clearly erroneous); Moore v. Lafayette Life Ins.,\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n458 F.3d 416, 440 (6th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court’s findings on Darden factors\\nwere not clearly erroneous), and others suggesting that they are legal conclusions, see Janette v.\\nAm. Fid. Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App’x 467, 473–74 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing the proper tests for the\\ncontrol factor and skill-required factor); Weary, 377 F.3d at 526 (explaining that a certain degree\\nof limited authority is not the type of control that establishes an employer-employee\\nrelationship); id. at 532 (arguing that the majority erred in defining the skill-required factor and\\nexplaining what the “legal issue” is concerning that factor) (Clay, J., dissenting).\\n\\n Other circuits, however, have explicitly considered this question and have come down on\\nthe side of treating these as factual matters subject to review for clear error. According to our\\nsister circuits:\\n\\n The existence and degree of each factor is a question of fact while the legal\\n conclusion to be drawn from those facts—whether workers are employees or\\n independent contractors—is a question of law. Thus, a district court’s findings as\\n to the underlying factors must be accepted unless clearly erroneous, while review\\n of the ultimate question of employment status is de novo.\\n\\nBrock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1988) (applying multi-factor\\n“economic reality” test to claim under FLSA); Berger Transfer & Storage v. Cent. States, Se.\\nand Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir. 1996); Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d\\n802, 805 (10th Cir. 1989).\\n\\n Granting due weight to our own and our sister circuits’ jurisprudence, we do not agree\\nthat a district court’s conclusion relating to the existence and degree of each Darden factor is\\nentirely a question of fact. There is a distinction between a lower court’s factual findings, which\\nwe review for clear error, and “the district court’s application of the legal standard to them,”\\nwhich we review de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School, Inc., 642 F.3d 518, 522\\n(6th Cir. 2011). The lower court’s determination of a Darden factor often necessarily involves\\nthe application of a legal standard to particular factual findings. Take, for example, Darden’s\\nfirst factor: “[W]hether the skill [required of an agent] is an independent discipline\\n(or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was) learned elsewhere.”\\nWeary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 323. As Judge Clay\\nobserved in his dissent in Weary, there is a “legal issue” inherent in the first factor as to whether\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nto consider “the amount of skill required” or rather “whether the skill is an independent\\ndiscipline (or profession) that is separate from the business.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J.,\\ndissenting). Each Darden factor is thus itself a “legal standard” that the district court is applying\\nto the facts. See also Ware, 67 F.3d at 576 (distinguishing the “facts and circumstances”\\nunderlying the Darden factors from both “the legal meaning and weight that those facts should\\nbe given individually and in the aggregate”) (emphasis added). It is therefore appropriate for us\\nto review de novo those determinations to the extent that they involve the application of a legal\\nstandard to a set of facts.\\n\\n What’s more, as we recognized in Ware, “the relative weight given to each [Darden]\\nfactor may differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Id. at 578 (emphasis\\nadded). Thus, for example, “a hiring party’s control is more relevant in the context of copyright\\nownership, because the statute assigns ownership on the basis of authorship unless the parties\\nexplicitly agree otherwise,” but “less important in an ERISA context.” Ibid. This implies that\\ncertain factors may carry more or less weight depending on the particular legal context in which\\nthe independent-contractor relationship is being determined. Ibid. (noting that the “same test\\nmight produce disparate results in different contexts”). Accordingly, it is also appropriate for us\\nto review de novo the district court’s weight assigned to of each of the Darden factors, given the\\nlegal context in which the claim has been brought.\\n\\n III\\n\\n A\\n\\n Here, the district court incorrectly applied the legal standards in determining the\\nexistence of the Darden factors relating to (1) the skill required of an agent and (2) the hiring and\\npaying of assistants. Had the court applied those standards properly, it would have found that\\nthose factors actually favored independent-contractor status. We analyze each of those factors\\nbelow.4\\n\\n\\n\\n 4Since we do not find that the district court applied an improper legal standard to any of the other Darden\\nfactors, we do not address them here.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n The first factor under Darden looks to “whether the skill [required of an agent] is an\\nindependent discipline (or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was)\\nlearned elsewhere.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Janette, 298 F. App’x\\nat 474. The district court held that the “amount of skill” factor under Darden weighs “slightly in\\nfavor of employee status” primarily on the basis that American Family “sought out potential\\nagents who were untrained.” In doing so, the district court erred.\\n\\n This circuit has previously held that the skill required of insurance agents weighs in favor\\nof independent-contractor status because “the sale of insurance is a highly specialized field” that\\nrequires “considerable training, education, and skill.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 526–27 (internal\\nquotations omitted). The skill inquiry centers on whether the skill is an independent discipline\\nthat “could be” learned elsewhere. Id. at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting). Though American Family\\npreferred hiring untrained, and often unlicensed, agents, the underlying discipline of selling\\ninsurance remains the same regardless of American Family’s hiring preferences. Ibid.\\n(“[B]ecause the skill of selling insurance is a general one, the majority may be correct in its\\nconclusion that this factor favors independent contractor status.”). The district court therefore\\nmisapplied the legal standard to the facts; the correct application would have weighed this factor\\nin favor of independent contractor status, as this circuit has done previously.\\n\\n Darden’s eighth factor examines “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants.”\\nDarden, 503 U.S. at 323–24. The court mistakenly weighed this factor as “neutral” after\\nconcluding that the agents “had primary authority to hire their own staff” and were solely\\nresponsible for all “staff compensation matters.”\\n\\n The district court found, as a factual matter, that American Family agents were\\nresponsible for paying their own staff, determining and paying for any benefits and taxes\\nassociated with that staff, and deciding whether to classify their staff as employees or\\nindependent contractors. While American Family provided “pre-approved” candidates, whom\\nthe agents could select as their staff, it did not require the agents to hire these pre-screened\\ncandidates. Agents also had sole discretion in staff-compensation matters and the sole\\nresponsibility to withhold and remit taxes to the federal government as the employers of their\\nstaff.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n On the other hand, American Family imposed qualifications on appointed agency staff,\\nincluding state licensure, clean driving records, education levels, credit history, and minimum\\nincome-to-debt ratios. American Family did not provide computer access to any non-approved\\nappointed agency staff and required agency staff to agree to a lifetime non-solicitation\\nagreement. American Family had the right to fire any agency staff, appointed or non-appointed,\\nwho did not live up to the American Family Code of Conduct, and it retained the right, although\\nrarely exercised, to fire agency staff for any reason. American Family managers were also\\nevaluated on the number of staff employed by their agents and would sometimes offer monetary\\nsubsidies to agents to hire more staff.\\n\\n Considering all of these facts, the district court determined that “[a]lthough American\\nFamily retained some right to override an agent’s hiring and firing decision, on balance, agents\\nhad primary authority over hiring and paying their assistants.” Yet the court inexplicably\\nconcluded from that finding that the factor was “neutral.” This conclusion was contrary to\\nDarden’s language. If the hired party has the “primary authority over hiring and paying its own\\nassistants,” the Darden factor regarding “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants”\\nshould weigh in favor of independent-contractor status. Janette, 298 F. App’x at 475–76\\n(Because plaintiff “could have hired assistants, at her expense,” the factor favored independent-\\ncontractor status.). Any other conclusion conflicts with Darden’s clear language.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Further, given our determination regarding the existence of each of the Darden factors,5\\nthe district court also erred by not properly weighing those factors that are particularly significant\\nin the legal context of ERISA eligibility. Darden asks us to look at the “hiring party’s right to\\ncontrol the manner and means by which the product is accomplished,” which we have\\ndetermined to be “a broad consideration that is embodied in many of the specific factors\\narticulated” there. Weary, 377 F.3d at 525. But “the relative weight given each [Darden] factor\\nmay differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. In\\nparticular, “control and supervision is less important in an ERISA context, where a court is\\n\\n 5That is to say, whether each Darden factor favors independent-contractor or employee status.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\ndetermining whether an employer has assumed responsibility for a person’s pension status.”\\nIbid. Because ERISA cases focus on the financial benefits that a company should have provided,\\nthe financial structure of the company-agent relationship guides the inquiry. Here, the Darden\\nfactors that most pertain to that financial structure favor independent-contractor status and,\\naccordingly, carry more weight in the ERISA context.\\n\\n In this case, the district court found that the insurance agents invested heavily in their\\noffices and instrumentalities, paid rent and worked out of their own offices, earned commissions\\non sales, were not eligible for employment benefits, and paid taxes as independent contractors.\\nAccordingly, the court weighed factors two (the source of the instrumentalities and tools), three\\n(the location of the work), seven (method of payment), eleven (provision of employee benefits),\\nand twelve (tax treatment) in favor of independent-contractor status.6 We have now corrected\\nthe district court’s weighing of factors one (the skill required) and eight (the hired party’s role in\\nhiring and paying assistants) to favor independent-contractor status, as well. Because this\\ninquiry exists in the legal context of ERISA benefits, this collection of factors—particularly the\\nones relating to the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the method of payment, the\\nprovision of employee benefits, and the agents’ tax treatment—is especially important in\\ndetermining the parties’ financial structure. Accordingly, these factors should have carried\\ngreater weight in the district court’s final analysis. Had the court properly weighed those factors\\nin accordance with their significance, it would have determined that the entire mix of Darden\\nfactors favored independent-contractor status.\\n\\n As further evidence of the financial structure of the parties’ relationship, the lower court\\nshould have also given greater weight to the parties’ express agreement. In determining the\\nparties’ relationship in the Darden context, we have several times “look[ed] to any express\\nagreement between the parties as to their status as it is the best evidence of their intent” and\\nplaced great weight on that agreement. Janette, 298 F. App’x. at 471; Weary, 377 F.3d at 525\\n(noting that the existence of a contract characterizing Weary as an independent contractor is\\n\\n\\n 6The district court weighed the “method of payment” factor in favor of independent-contractor status for\\nagents “once they began selling policies out of their own office.” During the agents’ “training period,” the court\\nweighed the factor in favor of employee status.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n“certainly relevant to the inquiry” and shows “how the parties themselves viewed the nature of\\ntheir working relationship”). Our sister circuits have adopted this approach, as well. See Brown\\nv. J. Kaz., Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that an independent-contractor\\nagreement “is strong evidence” of independent-contractor status); Schwieger v. Farm Bureau\\nIns. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir. 2000) (same). A written contract shows “how the\\nparties themselves viewed the nature of their working relationship” and therefore carries great—\\nbut not dispositive—weight in determining an independent-contractor relationship. Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525.\\n\\n The Agent Agreement governing the parties’ business relationship here indicates that\\nthey structured their relationship so that the agents should be treated as independent contractors.\\nEach Agreement contained a paragraph either identical to or substantively similar to the\\nfollowing:\\n\\n It is the intent of the parties hereto that you are not an employee of the Company\\n for any purpose, but are an independent contractor for all purposes, including\\n federal taxation with full control of your activities and the right to exercise\\n independent judgment as to time, place and manner of soliciting insurance,\\n servicing policyholders and otherwise carrying out the provisions of this\\n agreement. As an independent contractor you are responsible for your self-\\n employment taxes and are not eligible for various employee benefits such as\\n Workers and Unemployment Compensation.\\n\\nThe Agreement also provides that:\\n\\n Rates, rules, regulations and all provisions contained in the Company’s Agent’s\\n Manuals and all changes to them shall be binding upon you. If any inconsistency\\n or ambiguity exists between this agreement and such rate, rule, regulation,\\n provision or other statement or statements, whether written or oral, this agreement\\n shall control.\\n\\n(emphasis added). The Agency Agreement therefore states in wholly unambiguous terms that\\nagents are independent contractors who retain “full control” over several facets of their business.\\n\\n The district court correctly recognized that the agreement favored independent-contractor\\nstatus. But the court apparently did not weigh this important component when reaching its\\nconclusion regarding independent-contractor status. Had the lower court given this express\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nagreement proper consideration, it would have further swung the balance in favor of\\nindependent-contractor status.\\n\\n IV\\n\\n This court has time and again declared insurance agents to have employee status—and\\nappellees have presented no case in which we have not done so. See, e.g., Weary, 377 F.3d at\\n524; Wolcott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 245, 251 (6th Cir. 1989). Some of our sister\\ncircuits have in fact already found American Family agents to be independent contractors in\\nother contexts. Wortham v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 385 F.3d 1139, 1140–41 (8th Cir. 2004);\\nMoore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 90-3107, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13574, *3 (7th Cir.\\nJune 25, 1991). The plaintiffs have not shown that the facts here are so radically different from\\nthese cases to justify what would be a significant departure from these rulings, especially in the\\n“legal context” of ERISA eligibility where we have held that “control and supervision is less\\nimportant” than the financial structure of the parties’ relationship. Ware, 67 F.3d at 578.\\nAccordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with this\\nholding.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":161,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4585846,"string":"4,585,846"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Walid Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-29"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-4125"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BOGGS, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0012p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n WALID JAMMAL; KATHLEEN TUERSLEY; CINDA J. ┐\\n DURACHINSKY; NATHAN GARRETT, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > No. 17-4125\\n │\\n │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN; │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY TERMINATION BENEFITS PLAN; │\\n RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP; AMERICAN FAMILY 401K │\\n PLAN; GROUP LIFE PLAN; GROUP HEALTH PLAN; │\\n GROUP DENTAL PLAN; LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP MASTER │\\n RETIREMENT TRUST; 401K PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE │\\n COMMITTEE; COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES AND DISTRICT │\\n MANAGER RETIREMENT PLAN, │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:13-cv-00437—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: July 31, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Pierre H. Bergeron, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for\\nAppellants. Charles J. Crueger, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, for\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Pierre H. Bergeron, Lauren S. Kuley, Scott W. Coyle, Colter Paulson,\\nSQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gregory V. Mersol, Gilbert Brosky,\\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Charles J. Crueger, Erin K.\\nDickinson, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, Gregory F. Coleman,\\nGREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Knoxville, Tennessee, Edward A. Wallace, Kara A. Elgersma,\\nWEXLER WALLACE LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Drew T. Legando, LANDSKRONER GRIECO\\nMERRIMAN, LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. J. Philip Calabrese, PORTER WRIGHT\\nMORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, C. Darcy Copeland Jalandoni, PORTER\\nWRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Shay Dvoretzky, JONES DAY,\\nWashington, D.C., Paulo B. McKeeby, Ronald E. Manthey, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS\\nLLP, Dallas, Texas, Mary Ellen Signorille, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Washington,\\nD.C., Seth R. Lesser, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Rye Brook, New York, for Amici\\nCuriae.\\n\\n BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined. CLAY, J.\\n(pp. 16–25), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In this class action, the named plaintiffs represent several\\nthousand current and former insurance agents for American Family Insurance Company and its\\naffiliates (collectively, “American Family” or “the company”). The agents claim that American\\nFamily misclassified them as independent contractors, while treating them as employees, in order\\nto avoid paying them benefits in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act\\nof 1974 (“ERISA”).\\n\\n The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal concerns the nature of the parties’ legal\\nrelationship: are the plaintiffs employees or independent contractors for American Family? The\\ncompany appeals the district court’s judgment that the plaintiffs are employees. Because\\nAmerican Family properly classified its agents as independent contractors, we reverse.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n I\\n\\n As with many insurance companies, American Family sells its products primarily through\\na network of insurance agents. American Family, in keeping with common industry practice,\\nclassifies its agents as independent contractors rather than employees.\\n\\n Taking issue with this designation and the consequences it has on their ability to enjoy\\nthe protections of ERISA, the plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against American Family\\nin 2013, alleging that the company misclassified them as independent contractors. The plaintiffs\\ncontended that their miscategorization “deprived [them] of the rights and protections guaranteed\\nby state and federal law to employees, including their rights under ERISA.” They sought, inter\\nalia, a declaratory judgment that they are employees for all purposes, including but not limited to\\nERISA, and that as employees they are due benefits under ERISA.\\n\\n Both parties filed several pre-trial motions, including motions by American Family to\\ndismiss and later for summary judgment. The plaintiffs, for their part, moved for class\\ncertification. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied each of American\\nFamily’s motions in whole or in part. The company sought permission from this court to appeal\\nthe district court’s order granting class certification, but we denied the company’s request. The\\ndistrict court subsequently denied two motions by American Family to decertify the class.\\n\\n The case then proceeded to trial, which the district court bifurcated to allow for\\ndetermination of the threshold question of the plaintiffs’ employment status. Trial of this single\\nissue took place before an advisory jury, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1),\\nwhich permits district courts to “try any issue with an advisory jury” in an action that is “not\\ntriable of right by a jury.”1\\n\\n During the twelve-day trial, the jury learned that the parties took many steps to structure\\ntheir relationship consistent with American Family’s position that its agents are independent\\ncontractors. Most pointedly, at the outset of the agents’ tenure with the company, all agents\\n\\n\\n 1Plaintiffsseeking relief under ERISA generally have no right to have their claims decided by a jury. See,\\ne.g., Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., 150 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998); Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.,\\n123 F.3d 877, 882–83 (6th Cir. 1997); Bair v. Gen. Motors Corp., 895 F.2d 1094, 1096–97 (6th Cir. 1990).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nsigned a written agreement stating that they were independent contractors rather than employees.\\nIn keeping with this designation, the agents file their taxes as independent contractors and deduct\\ntheir business expenses as self-employed business owners. American Family also pays its agents\\nin commissions and does not provide them with vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, or paid time\\noff.\\n\\n Moreover, as the district court recounted, “[t]he company calls its agents ‘business\\nowners’ and ‘partners’ and tells new agents they will be ‘agency business’ owners and that they\\nneed to ‘invest’ in ‘their business.’” The agents work out of their own offices, set their own\\nhours, and hire and pay their own staff. They also are responsible for providing most of the\\nresources necessary to run their agencies, such as office furniture and office supplies.\\n\\n But the plaintiffs also presented significant evidence to support their claim that American\\nFamily treats them more like employees than independent partners and business owners. The\\ncompany classifies everyone in its sales force—other than its agents—as employees.\\nNevertheless, the company’s training manuals refer to the agents as “employees.” Each agent\\nmust report to an Agency Sales Manager, and the plaintiffs presented testimony that American\\nFamily did not train these managers to treat the agents as independent contractors or even make\\nthe managers aware that the agents were classified as such.\\n\\n According to the plaintiffs, the managers exerted a great amount of control over their\\nday-to-day activities. The managers insisted, among other required tasks, that the agents\\ncomplete daily activity reports, prioritize selling certain insurance policies, and participate in\\n“life-call” nights in which the agents had to stay after normal business hours to solicit life\\ninsurance by calling prospective customers. The plaintiffs also offered testimony that the\\ncompany retained some authority to approve or disapprove of the location of the agents’ offices\\nand to be involved in the hiring and firing of the agents’ staff in a way that limited the plaintiffs’\\nability to run their own agencies.\\n\\n The jury also heard testimony that American Family teaches agents everything they need\\nto know to become licensed, run an agency, and sell the company’s products. All agents attend a\\ntwo-to-three-month-long comprehensive training program run by American Family on how to\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nsell insurance and how to operate an agency. Once hired, the agents must sell insurance\\nexclusively for American Family, and they are discouraged—but not forbidden—from taking\\nother work, even if it is unrelated to the insurance industry. There is no limit on the duration of\\nthe agency relationship, and American Family describes the agency position as a career position.\\nAlthough the agents are not eligible for the same pension or retirement plans given to the\\ncompany’s employees, they are offered an “extended earnings” benefit that is described to them\\nas a retirement plan.2 When and if their relationship with the company does come to an end, the\\nagents are prohibited for a year from soliciting business from any of their former American\\nFamily customers. And unlike most business owners, the agents cannot sell their agencies or\\nassign any rights to income from their agencies.\\n\\n At the close of the trial, the court presented the advisory jury with the following\\ninterrogatory:\\n\\n Please answer the following question “yes” or “no” according to your findings:\\n Did Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are employees\\n of Defendant American Family?\\n\\nThe jury answered “yes.”\\n\\n After giving the parties a final opportunity to present their proposed findings of fact and\\nconclusions of law, the court issued an opinion in which it acknowledged that although it was not\\nbound by the advisory jury’s determination, it believed that the jury’s verdict “comport[ed] with\\nthe weight of the evidence presented at trial.” Accordingly, the district court determined that the\\nagents were employees for the purposes of ERISA.\\n\\n The district court certified its ruling for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1292(b), and American Family filed a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2The “extended earnings” program offered a lifetime annuity to agents and was reported as one of\\nAmerican Family’s “Defined Benefit Plans” in its annual statement filed with insurance regulators. Agents were\\nautomatically enrolled in these plans, did not contribute to these plans, and received increasing benefits with\\nincreasing years of service.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nWe granted permission to appeal, which American Family did, arguing that the district court\\nerred in determining that the plaintiffs are employees.3\\n\\n II\\n\\n A\\n\\n The determination of whether a plaintiff qualifies as an employee under ERISA is a\\nmixed question of law and fact that a judge normally can make as a matter of law. See Weary v.\\nCochran, 377 F.3d 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2004); Waxman v. Luna, 881 F.2d 237, 240 (6th Cir.\\n1989). After a bench trial to determine a plaintiff’s employment status, this court typically\\nreviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including its\\nultimate decision about the plaintiff’s status, de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch.,\\nInc., 642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011). However, “[o]n interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n1292(b), our review is limited to the district court’s conclusions of law.” Sheet Metal Emp’rs\\nIndus. Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co., 830 F.3d 358, 361 (6th Cir. 2016). We review\\nthose conclusions de novo, but “we have no authority to review the district court’s findings of\\nfact.” Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2001).\\n\\n “ERISA is a comprehensive statute designed to promote the interests of employees and\\ntheir beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983).\\nThe plaintiffs brought this action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), which enables “participant[s]” in an\\nemployee benefit plan to enforce ERISA’s substantive provisions. Under ERISA, a “participant”\\nis “any employee or former employee of an employer . . . who is or may become eligible to\\nreceive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such\\nemployer.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). Therefore, the plaintiffs can prevail on their ERISA claims\\nonly if they can show that they were American Family’s employees. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.\\nDarden, 503 U.S. 318, 321 (1992).\\n\\n ERISA defines an “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 1002(6). An “employer,” in turn, “means any person acting directly as an employer, or\\n\\n 3The company also contends that the court’s determination was erroneous because it relied on non-\\nrepresentative class evidence. Because we decide the case on other grounds, we do not reach this issue.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nindirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan.” § 1002(5).\\nBecause these definitions provide little guidance as to the meaning of “employee,” “the Supreme\\nCourt has instructed courts to interpret the term by ‘incorporating the common law of agency.’”\\nBryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 656 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting\\nWare v. United States, 67 F.3d 574, 576 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Darden, 503 U.S. at 322–24)).\\n\\n In Darden, the Supreme Court provided the following standard “for determining who\\nqualifies as an ‘employee’ under ERISA.” 503 U.S. at 323.\\n\\n In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common\\n law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and\\n means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to\\n this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the\\n location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether\\n the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the\\n extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method\\n of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the\\n work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is\\n in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired\\n party.\\n\\nId. at 323–24 (quoting Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751–52 (1989)).\\nIn addition to these factors (“the Darden factors”), we have held that an express agreement\\nbetween the parties concerning employment status is also a relevant consideration. See Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525.\\n\\n The “crux of Darden’s common law agency test is ‘the hiring party’s right to control the\\nmanner and means by which the product is accomplished.’” Ibid. (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at\\n323). Thus, “our analysis of [the Darden] factors . . . reflects upon, and is relevant to, this core\\nissue of control.” Ibid. “[T]he relative weight given each factor may differ depending upon the\\nlegal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. “Notwithstanding this recognition\\nthat certain factors may deserve added weight in some contexts, a court must evaluate all of the\\nincidents of the employment relationship.” Ibid.; see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (“Since the\\ncommon-law test contains ‘no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the\\nanswer, . . . all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nfactor being decisive.’” (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S.\\n254, 258 (1968)).\\n\\n Applying the test from Darden and its progeny, the district court determined that the\\nplaintiffs were employees rather than independent contractors. After deciding that the Darden\\nfactors were “almost evenly split between favoring employee status and favoring independent\\ncontractor status,” the court proceeded to a broader analysis of the level of control that American\\nFamily exercised over its agents. Ultimately, the court concluded that “[t]he degree of control\\nmanagers were encouraged to exercise was inconsistent with independent contractor status and\\nwas more in line with the level of control a manager would be expected to exert over an\\nemployee.” This, along with the evidence related to the other Darden factors, led the court to\\ndetermine that the plaintiffs were employees during the relevant class period.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Since in this interlocutory appeal we may review only the district court’s conclusions of\\nlaw, we must first decide which of the court’s determinations were matters of law and which\\nwere factual. This much is clear: the district court’s findings underlying its holding on each of\\nthe Darden factors are factual findings, and the court’s ultimate conclusion as to whether the\\nplaintiffs were employees is a question of law.\\n\\n But what of the court’s conclusions about the Darden factors—both of their existence\\nand of the weight to be assigned them? Are these factual findings or conclusions of law?\\nAlthough neither party has provided much briefing on this question, the plaintiffs suggest that\\nthese are issues of fact, while American Family claims that they are issues of law. The parties’\\ndispute is understandable, as we have yet to clarify whether and to what extent a court’s\\nconclusions about the individual factors that make up the Darden standard are factual or legal in\\nnature. Indeed, some of our decisions seem to be in tension with one another, with some\\nindicating that a district court’s determinations on the Darden factors are factual findings, see\\nPeno Trucking, Inc. v. C.I.R., 296 F. App’x 449, 454–60 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating, first, that the\\nappropriate rule is to review factual findings for clear error and, second, that the Tax Court’s\\nfindings about control and other factors were not clearly erroneous); Moore v. Lafayette Life Ins.,\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n458 F.3d 416, 440 (6th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court’s findings on Darden factors\\nwere not clearly erroneous), and others suggesting that they are legal conclusions, see Janette v.\\nAm. Fid. Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App’x 467, 473–74 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing the proper tests for the\\ncontrol factor and skill-required factor); Weary, 377 F.3d at 526 (explaining that a certain degree\\nof limited authority is not the type of control that establishes an employer-employee\\nrelationship); id. at 532 (arguing that the majority erred in defining the skill-required factor and\\nexplaining what the “legal issue” is concerning that factor) (Clay, J., dissenting).\\n\\n Other circuits, however, have explicitly considered this question and have come down on\\nthe side of treating these as factual matters subject to review for clear error. According to our\\nsister circuits:\\n\\n The existence and degree of each factor is a question of fact while the legal\\n conclusion to be drawn from those facts—whether workers are employees or\\n independent contractors—is a question of law. Thus, a district court’s findings as\\n to the underlying factors must be accepted unless clearly erroneous, while review\\n of the ultimate question of employment status is de novo.\\n\\nBrock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1988) (applying multi-factor\\n“economic reality” test to claim under FLSA); Berger Transfer & Storage v. Cent. States, Se.\\nand Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir. 1996); Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d\\n802, 805 (10th Cir. 1989).\\n\\n Granting due weight to our own and our sister circuits’ jurisprudence, we do not agree\\nthat a district court’s conclusion relating to the existence and degree of each Darden factor is\\nentirely a question of fact. There is a distinction between a lower court’s factual findings, which\\nwe review for clear error, and “the district court’s application of the legal standard to them,”\\nwhich we review de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School, Inc., 642 F.3d 518, 522\\n(6th Cir. 2011). The lower court’s determination of a Darden factor often necessarily involves\\nthe application of a legal standard to particular factual findings. Take, for example, Darden’s\\nfirst factor: “[W]hether the skill [required of an agent] is an independent discipline\\n(or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was) learned elsewhere.”\\nWeary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 323. As Judge Clay\\nobserved in his dissent in Weary, there is a “legal issue” inherent in the first factor as to whether\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nto consider “the amount of skill required” or rather “whether the skill is an independent\\ndiscipline (or profession) that is separate from the business.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J.,\\ndissenting). Each Darden factor is thus itself a “legal standard” that the district court is applying\\nto the facts. See also Ware, 67 F.3d at 576 (distinguishing the “facts and circumstances”\\nunderlying the Darden factors from both “the legal meaning and weight that those facts should\\nbe given individually and in the aggregate”) (emphasis added). It is therefore appropriate for us\\nto review de novo those determinations to the extent that they involve the application of a legal\\nstandard to a set of facts.\\n\\n What’s more, as we recognized in Ware, “the relative weight given to each [Darden]\\nfactor may differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Id. at 578 (emphasis\\nadded). Thus, for example, “a hiring party’s control is more relevant in the context of copyright\\nownership, because the statute assigns ownership on the basis of authorship unless the parties\\nexplicitly agree otherwise,” but “less important in an ERISA context.” Ibid. This implies that\\ncertain factors may carry more or less weight depending on the particular legal context in which\\nthe independent-contractor relationship is being determined. Ibid. (noting that the “same test\\nmight produce disparate results in different contexts”). Accordingly, it is also appropriate for us\\nto review de novo the district court’s weight assigned to of each of the Darden factors, given the\\nlegal context in which the claim has been brought.\\n\\n III\\n\\n A\\n\\n Here, the district court incorrectly applied the legal standards in determining the\\nexistence of the Darden factors relating to (1) the skill required of an agent and (2) the hiring and\\npaying of assistants. Had the court applied those standards properly, it would have found that\\nthose factors actually favored independent-contractor status. We analyze each of those factors\\nbelow.4\\n\\n\\n\\n 4Since we do not find that the district court applied an improper legal standard to any of the other Darden\\nfactors, we do not address them here.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n The first factor under Darden looks to “whether the skill [required of an agent] is an\\nindependent discipline (or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was)\\nlearned elsewhere.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Janette, 298 F. App’x\\nat 474. The district court held that the “amount of skill” factor under Darden weighs “slightly in\\nfavor of employee status” primarily on the basis that American Family “sought out potential\\nagents who were untrained.” In doing so, the district court erred.\\n\\n This circuit has previously held that the skill required of insurance agents weighs in favor\\nof independent-contractor status because “the sale of insurance is a highly specialized field” that\\nrequires “considerable training, education, and skill.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 526–27 (internal\\nquotations omitted). The skill inquiry centers on whether the skill is an independent discipline\\nthat “could be” learned elsewhere. Id. at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting). Though American Family\\npreferred hiring untrained, and often unlicensed, agents, the underlying discipline of selling\\ninsurance remains the same regardless of American Family’s hiring preferences. Ibid.\\n(“[B]ecause the skill of selling insurance is a general one, the majority may be correct in its\\nconclusion that this factor favors independent contractor status.”). The district court therefore\\nmisapplied the legal standard to the facts; the correct application would have weighed this factor\\nin favor of independent contractor status, as this circuit has done previously.\\n\\n Darden’s eighth factor examines “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants.”\\nDarden, 503 U.S. at 323–24. The court mistakenly weighed this factor as “neutral” after\\nconcluding that the agents “had primary authority to hire their own staff” and were solely\\nresponsible for all “staff compensation matters.”\\n\\n The district court found, as a factual matter, that American Family agents were\\nresponsible for paying their own staff, determining and paying for any benefits and taxes\\nassociated with that staff, and deciding whether to classify their staff as employees or\\nindependent contractors. While American Family provided “pre-approved” candidates, whom\\nthe agents could select as their staff, it did not require the agents to hire these pre-screened\\ncandidates. Agents also had sole discretion in staff-compensation matters and the sole\\nresponsibility to withhold and remit taxes to the federal government as the employers of their\\nstaff.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n On the other hand, American Family imposed qualifications on appointed agency staff,\\nincluding state licensure, clean driving records, education levels, credit history, and minimum\\nincome-to-debt ratios. American Family did not provide computer access to any non-approved\\nappointed agency staff and required agency staff to agree to a lifetime non-solicitation\\nagreement. American Family had the right to fire any agency staff, appointed or non-appointed,\\nwho did not live up to the American Family Code of Conduct, and it retained the right, although\\nrarely exercised, to fire agency staff for any reason. American Family managers were also\\nevaluated on the number of staff employed by their agents and would sometimes offer monetary\\nsubsidies to agents to hire more staff.\\n\\n Considering all of these facts, the district court determined that “[a]lthough American\\nFamily retained some right to override an agent’s hiring and firing decision, on balance, agents\\nhad primary authority over hiring and paying their assistants.” Yet the court inexplicably\\nconcluded from that finding that the factor was “neutral.” This conclusion was contrary to\\nDarden’s language. If the hired party has the “primary authority over hiring and paying its own\\nassistants,” the Darden factor regarding “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants”\\nshould weigh in favor of independent-contractor status. Janette, 298 F. App’x at 475–76\\n(Because plaintiff “could have hired assistants, at her expense,” the factor favored independent-\\ncontractor status.). Any other conclusion conflicts with Darden’s clear language.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Further, given our determination regarding the existence of each of the Darden factors,5\\nthe district court also erred by not properly weighing those factors that are particularly significant\\nin the legal context of ERISA eligibility. Darden asks us to look at the “hiring party’s right to\\ncontrol the manner and means by which the product is accomplished,” which we have\\ndetermined to be “a broad consideration that is embodied in many of the specific factors\\narticulated” there. Weary, 377 F.3d at 525. But “the relative weight given each [Darden] factor\\nmay differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. In\\nparticular, “control and supervision is less important in an ERISA context, where a court is\\n\\n 5That is to say, whether each Darden factor favors independent-contractor or employee status.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\ndetermining whether an employer has assumed responsibility for a person’s pension status.”\\nIbid. Because ERISA cases focus on the financial benefits that a company should have provided,\\nthe financial structure of the company-agent relationship guides the inquiry. Here, the Darden\\nfactors that most pertain to that financial structure favor independent-contractor status and,\\naccordingly, carry more weight in the ERISA context.\\n\\n In this case, the district court found that the insurance agents invested heavily in their\\noffices and instrumentalities, paid rent and worked out of their own offices, earned commissions\\non sales, were not eligible for employment benefits, and paid taxes as independent contractors.\\nAccordingly, the court weighed factors two (the source of the instrumentalities and tools), three\\n(the location of the work), seven (method of payment), eleven (provision of employee benefits),\\nand twelve (tax treatment) in favor of independent-contractor status.6 We have now corrected\\nthe district court’s weighing of factors one (the skill required) and eight (the hired party’s role in\\nhiring and paying assistants) to favor independent-contractor status, as well. Because this\\ninquiry exists in the legal context of ERISA benefits, this collection of factors—particularly the\\nones relating to the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the method of payment, the\\nprovision of employee benefits, and the agents’ tax treatment—is especially important in\\ndetermining the parties’ financial structure. Accordingly, these factors should have carried\\ngreater weight in the district court’s final analysis. Had the court properly weighed those factors\\nin accordance with their significance, it would have determined that the entire mix of Darden\\nfactors favored independent-contractor status.\\n\\n As further evidence of the financial structure of the parties’ relationship, the lower court\\nshould have also given greater weight to the parties’ express agreement. In determining the\\nparties’ relationship in the Darden context, we have several times “look[ed] to any express\\nagreement between the parties as to their status as it is the best evidence of their intent” and\\nplaced great weight on that agreement. Janette, 298 F. App’x. at 471; Weary, 377 F.3d at 525\\n(noting that the existence of a contract characterizing Weary as an independent contractor is\\n\\n\\n 6The district court weighed the “method of payment” factor in favor of independent-contractor status for\\nagents “once they began selling policies out of their own office.” During the agents’ “training period,” the court\\nweighed the factor in favor of employee status.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n“certainly relevant to the inquiry” and shows “how the parties themselves viewed the nature of\\ntheir working relationship”). Our sister circuits have adopted this approach, as well. See Brown\\nv. J. Kaz., Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that an independent-contractor\\nagreement “is strong evidence” of independent-contractor status); Schwieger v. Farm Bureau\\nIns. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir. 2000) (same). A written contract shows “how the\\nparties themselves viewed the nature of their working relationship” and therefore carries great—\\nbut not dispositive—weight in determining an independent-contractor relationship. Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525.\\n\\n The Agent Agreement governing the parties’ business relationship here indicates that\\nthey structured their relationship so that the agents should be treated as independent contractors.\\nEach Agreement contained a paragraph either identical to or substantively similar to the\\nfollowing:\\n\\n It is the intent of the parties hereto that you are not an employee of the Company\\n for any purpose, but are an independent contractor for all purposes, including\\n federal taxation with full control of your activities and the right to exercise\\n independent judgment as to time, place and manner of soliciting insurance,\\n servicing policyholders and otherwise carrying out the provisions of this\\n agreement. As an independent contractor you are responsible for your self-\\n employment taxes and are not eligible for various employee benefits such as\\n Workers and Unemployment Compensation.\\n\\nThe Agreement also provides that:\\n\\n Rates, rules, regulations and all provisions contained in the Company’s Agent’s\\n Manuals and all changes to them shall be binding upon you. If any inconsistency\\n or ambiguity exists between this agreement and such rate, rule, regulation,\\n provision or other statement or statements, whether written or oral, this agreement\\n shall control.\\n\\n(emphasis added). The Agency Agreement therefore states in wholly unambiguous terms that\\nagents are independent contractors who retain “full control” over several facets of their business.\\n\\n The district court correctly recognized that the agreement favored independent-contractor\\nstatus. But the court apparently did not weigh this important component when reaching its\\nconclusion regarding independent-contractor status. Had the lower court given this express\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nagreement proper consideration, it would have further swung the balance in favor of\\nindependent-contractor status.\\n\\n IV\\n\\n This court has time and again declared insurance agents to have independent-contractor\\nstatus—and appellees have presented no case in which we have not done so. See, e.g., Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 524; Wolcott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 245, 251 (6th Cir. 1989). Some\\nof our sister circuits have in fact already found American Family agents to be independent\\ncontractors in other contexts. Wortham v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 385 F.3d 1139, 1140–41 (8th\\nCir. 2004); Moore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 90-3107, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13574, *3\\n(7th Cir. June 25, 1991). The plaintiffs have not shown that the facts here are so radically\\ndifferent from these cases to justify what would be a significant departure from these rulings,\\nespecially in the “legal context” of ERISA eligibility where we have held that “control and\\nsupervision is less important” than the financial structure of the parties’ relationship. Ware, 67\\nF.3d at 578. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance\\nwith this holding.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4363099/\", \"author_raw\": \"BOGGS, Circuit Judge\"}, {\"author\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The only issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether\\nPlaintiffs are “employees” or “independent contractors” for purposes of the Employee\\nRetirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The majority\\nholds that Plaintiffs are independent contractors based on its analysis of the factors set forth by\\nNationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992). However, because the majority\\n(1) adopts an incorrect standard of review for district court determinations regarding whether and\\nto what extent the Darden factors support employee or independent contractor status;\\n(2) incorrectly analyzes Darden factors one and eight; and (3) incorrectly weighs the Darden\\nfactors, I respectfully dissent.\\n\\n I. Background\\n\\n American Family Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “American Family” or\\n“Defendants”) is an insurance company “whose business is selling insurance.” (RE 320, District\\nCourt Opinion, PageID # 20949.)1 Unsurprisingly, American Family’s insurance agents “are\\ncore to [this] business.” (Id.) Over the last five years, American Family’s insurance agents have\\nbrought in 85% of American Family’s insurance premiums—approximately $5.1 billion. Yet,\\nAmerican Family does not provide its agents with numerous health, welfare, and retirement\\nbenefits, including “a retirement plan, 401K plan, group health plan, group dental plan, group\\nlife plan, and long-term disability plan.” (Id. at PageID # 20945.) American Family claims it is\\nnot required to provide these benefits because it classifies its insurance agents as independent\\ncontractors, not employees, relieving it of all ERISA obligations.\\n\\n Plaintiffs represent a class of some 7,200 current and former American Family insurance\\nagents seeking ERISA benefits who challenge that classification. Plaintiffs argue that the\\ncircumstances of their relationship with American Family demonstrate that they are employees,\\n\\n\\n 1Except as otherwise indicated, record citations refer to the record in district court action No. 13-cv-00437.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 17\\n\\n\\nregardless of what American Family chooses to call them. Accordingly, the district court\\nbifurcated this case to determine at the outset whether Plaintiffs are employees or independent\\ncontractors for purposes of ERISA.\\n\\n A twelve-day trial before an advisory jury ensued. Twenty-seven witnesses were called,\\nand extensive documentary evidence was submitted. At the conclusion of the trial, the advisory\\njury unanimously concluded that Plaintiffs were employees. Though it was not bound by the\\njury’s verdict, the district court reached the same conclusion.\\n\\n In reaching that conclusion, the district court relied on the factors articulated in\\nNationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318 (1992) for determining whether an individual\\nis an employee or an independent contractor. The Darden factors include:\\n\\n the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the\\n work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring\\n party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the\\n hiring party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of\\n payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work\\n is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in\\n business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired\\n party.\\n\\nId. at 323–24. This Court has also held that an express agreement between the parties is a\\nrelevant factor. See Weary v. Cochran, 377 F.3d 522, 525 (6th Cir. 2004). The crux of this test\\nis “the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is\\naccomplished.” Darden, 503 U.S. at 323.\\n\\n Although the majority reaches a different conclusion than did the advisory jury and the\\ndistrict court, it disagrees with only a few aspects of the district court’s analysis of the Darden\\nfactors. Because I agree with the advisory jury and the district court, this dissenting opinion will\\naddress only those Darden factors that the majority discusses. The district court’s well-reasoned\\nopinion speaks for itself as to the remaining Darden factors.\\n\\n Before addressing the majority’s discussion of the Darden factors, a preliminary issue\\nmust be resolved.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 18\\n\\n\\n II. Standard of Review and Legal Framework\\n\\n As the majority explains, this case requires us to adopt a standard of review for district\\ncourt determinations regarding the existence and degree of the Darden factors—that is, whether\\nand to what extent each factor supports employee or independent contractor status. Plaintiffs\\nassert that these determinations are findings of fact typically reviewed for clear error, while\\nDefendants assert that they are conclusions of law typically reviewed de novo. The Sixth Circuit\\nhas yet to explicitly address this issue, and our cases implicitly addressing this issue fail to\\nprovide a clear answer. Compare Peno Trucking, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 296 F.\\nApp’x 449, 454–60 (6th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for clear error, without much discussion) with\\nJanette v. Am. Fidelity Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App’x 467, 472–76 (6th Cir. 2008) (reviewing de novo,\\nwithout much discussion). Accordingly, it might be helpful to consider cases from other circuits.\\n\\n Four circuits have explicitly addressed this issue, and all four held that the existence and\\ndegree of each Darden factor constitutes a finding of fact reviewed for clear error. See Berger\\nTransfer & Storage v. Cent. States Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir. 1996); Dole\\nv. Snell, 875 F.2d 802, 805 (10th Cir. 1989); Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059\\n(2d Cir. 1988); Brock v. Mr. W Fireworks, Inc., 814 F.2d 1042, 1043–44 (5th Cir. 1987).2\\n\\n The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Mr. W Fireworks is particularly instructive. In that case,\\nthe court explained that “[t]here are . . . three types of findings involved in determining whether\\none is an employee within the meaning of the [Fair Labor Standards] Act.” 814 F.2d at 1044.\\n“First, there are historical findings of fact that underlie a finding as to one of [the factors].” Id.\\nThese are undisputedly reviewed for clear error. “Second, there are those findings as to\\n[the factors] themselves.” Id. These findings are “plainly and simply based on inferences from\\n[the historical] facts and thus are [also] questions of fact that we may set aside only if clearly\\nerroneous.” Id. “Finally, the district court must reach an ultimate conclusion that the workers at\\nissue are ‘employees’ or ‘independent contractors’” Id. at 1045. This is undisputedly reviewed\\nde novo, as “[t]he ultimate finding as to employee status is not simply a factual inference drawn\\n\\n\\n 2Those cases that pre-date Darden address the same issue with regard to the Darden factors’ predecessor,\\nthe Silk factors. See United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (1947), abrogated by Darden, 503 U.S. at 525.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 19\\n\\n\\nfrom historical facts [like the findings as to the factors themselves], but more accurately is a legal\\nconclusion based on factual inferences drawn from historical facts.” Id.\\n\\n The reasoning of the Second, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits is sound. “The existence\\nand degree of each [Darden] factor [are] question[s] of fact” because they are based on simple\\ninferences drawn from underlying historical findings of fact. Berger Transfer, 85 F.3d at 1377–\\n78. For instance, Darden factor five is “whether the hiring party has the right to assign\\nadditional projects to the hired party.” Darden, 503 U.S. at 323–24. A finding that this factor\\nsupports employee status is based on a simple inference from a finding that “the hiring party had\\nthe right to assign additional projects to the hired party.” See Hi-Tech Video Prods., Inc. v.\\nCapital Cities/ABC, Inc., 58 F.3d 1093, 1096 (6th Cir. 1995). Thus, the two findings should both\\nbe subject to the clear error standard of review.\\n\\n The majority’s contrary holding—that “[e]ach Darden factor is . . . itself a ‘legal\\nstandard’ that the district court is applying to the facts”—is belied not only by the unanimity of\\nother circuits that have addressed this issue, but also by the cases on which it purports to rely.\\nThe majority’s reliance on my dissent in Weary v. Cochran, wherein I referred to Darden factor\\none as a “legal issue,” is misplaced. 377 F.3d 522, 532 (6th Cir. 2004). Needless to say, it is the\\nmajority opinion in Weary that binds this Court, including myself, no matter what is said in the\\ndissent.3 See Johnson v. Doodson Ins. Brokerage, LLC, 793 F.3d 674, 677 (6th Cir. 2015). The\\nmajority then cites Ware v. United States, in which this Court distinguished the “facts and\\ncircumstances” of an employment relationship from “the legal meaning and weight that those\\nfacts should be given.” 67 F.3d 574, 576 (6th Cir. 1995). But the “legal meaning” that the\\nDarden factors should be given—i.e., whether Plaintiffs are employees or independents\\ncontractors for purposes of ERISA—and the “legal weight” that the Darden factors should be\\ngiven—i.e., which factors should be relied upon more than others and when—are both\\nundisputedly conclusions of law reviewed de novo. See Trs. of Resilient Floor Decorators Ins.\\nFund v. A&M Installations, Inc., 395 F.3d 244, 249 (6th Cir. 2005); Hi-Tech Video Prods., Inc.\\n\\n\\n 3The majority cites various portions of my dissent in Weary a total of five times throughout its opinion.\\nSuch cherry-picking does nothing to increase the persuasiveness of the majority’s reasoning, particularly to the\\nextent that my dissent is at odds with controlling case law and the subsequent published decisions of this Court.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 20\\n\\n\\nv. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 58 F.3d 1093, 1096 (6th Cir. 1995). Thus, the majority’s reliance\\nupon Ware misses the point. That case says nothing about the existence and degree of each\\nDarden factor, a distinct, factual determination that should be reviewed for clear error.\\n\\n The procedural posture of this case may help explain the difficulty with the majority’s\\nreasoning. Because this is an interlocutory appeal, we “have no authority to review the district\\ncourt’s findings of fact.” Northwestern Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d\\n1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2001). Consequently, a holding that the district court’s determinations\\nregarding the existence and degree of each Darden factor are findings of fact to be reviewed for\\nclear error would, in this case, preclude any review of such determinations, and diminish the\\nmajority’s ability to reverse a decision that the majority believes goes against the weight of\\nauthority.\\n\\n III. Analysis of Darden Factors One and Eight\\n\\n Even assuming arguendo that district court determinations regarding the existence and\\ndegree of each Darden factor constitute applications of law to fact that we have authority to\\nreview in this case, the majority incorrectly analyzes Darden factors one and eight, the only two\\nfactors on which the majority disagrees with the district court’s analysis.\\n\\n Darden factor one is “the skill required”—here, of an insurance agent. Darden, 503 U.S.\\nat 323–24. And “the sale of insurance is a ‘highly specialized field,’ requiring considerable\\n‘training,’ ‘education,’ and ‘skill.’” Weary, 377 F.3d at 527 (quotation omitted). However, that\\nis not the end of the inquiry. Because “‘skills are not the monopoly of independent\\ncontractors’ . . . [i]t is also important to ask how the worker acquired his skill.” Keller v. Miri\\nMicrosystems, LLC, 781 F.3d 799, 809 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Sec’y of Labor v. Laurtizen,\\n835 F.2d 1529, 1537 (6th Cir. 1987)).4 “[If] the company provides all workers with the skills\\nnecessary to perform the job, then that weighs in favor of finding that the worker is\\nindistinguishable from an employee.” Id. Accordingly, in Keller, this Court held that there was\\n\\n 4The Seventh Circuit has also recognized the importance of this question. See Equal Emp’t Opportunity\\nComm’n v. N. Knox Sch. Corp., 154 F.3d 744, 747 (7th Cir. 1998) (explaining that the Seventh Circuit’s Knight\\nfactors, in which the Darden factors are “subsumed,” include “the kind of occupation and nature of skill required,\\nincluding whether skills are obtained in the workplace”) (emphasis added).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 21\\n\\n\\na genuine issue of material fact regarding the skill required of the plaintiff because “[the\\ndefendant] provided [the plaintiff] with the critical training necessary to do the work.” Id.\\n\\n It is undisputed that the same is true in this case. The district court found that\\n“[Defendants] almost always hired untrained, and often unlicensed, agents and provided all the\\ntraining they needed to be an American Family agent.” (RE 320, PageID # 20972.) In fact, they\\n“preferred to hire untrained agents so that they could be trained in the ‘American Family’ way.”\\n(Id. at PageID # 20972–73.) And “[i]f an agent had worked for a different company prior to\\nbeing hired at American Family, they were re-trained in the ways of American Family agents\\nupon hire.” (Id. at PageID # 20973–74.) Thus, because “the company provide[d] all workers\\nwith the skills necessary to perform the job,” the district court was correct in its determination\\nthat Darden factor one supports the status of Plaintiffs as employees. Keller, 781 F.3d at 809.\\n\\n The majority’s contrary holding—that “this factor [weighs] in favor of independent\\ncontractor status”—is again undermined by the cases on which it purports to rely. The majority\\nreasons that “[t]he first factor under Darden looks to ‘whether the skill is an independent\\ndiscipline (or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was) learned\\nelsewhere,’” and that the skill of an insurance agent “could be” learned elsewhere, but in doing\\nso relies solely on the dissent in Weary.5 And the dissent in Weary glaringly conflicts with this\\nCourt’s subsequent decision in Keller, in which this Court clearly stated that “[if] the company\\nprovides all workers with the skills necessary to perform the job,” Darden factor one supports\\nemployee status. Keller, 781 F.3d at 809. Whether those skills could have been learned\\nelsewhere is irrelevant, and the majority’s holding to the contrary flies in the face of binding\\nprecedent.\\n\\n Darden factor eight is “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants.” Darden,\\n503 U.S. at 323–24. The greater the role that the hired party plays, the more this factor supports\\n\\n\\n 5The majority also cites this Court’s unpublished decision in Janette, which quoted the same passage from\\nthe dissent in Weary. However, this Court in Janette cited that passage as though it were from the majority in\\nWeary, failing to indicate “(Clay, J., dissenting)” after its pincite. See 298 F. App’x at 474. Thus, it is possible if\\nnot likely that this Court in Janette mistakenly believed it was quoting binding precedent as opposed to a non-\\nbinding dissent. Regardless, Janette itself is an unpublished and therefore non-binding decision. See United States\\nv. Yates, 886 F.3d 723, 728 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 22\\n\\n\\nindependent contractor status, and the greater the role that the hiring party plays, the more this\\nfactor supports employee status. Weary, 377 F.3d at 527.\\n\\n In this case, the district court found that Plaintiffs “ha[d] primary authority to hire and\\nfire their staff,” but not “sole discretion” in doing so, and that they “ha[d] sole discretion in staff\\ncompensation matters.” (RE 320, PageID # 20979.) Specifically, the district court found that\\nDefendants played a role in hiring and firing Plaintiffs’ staff (1) by “impos[ing] qualifications”\\non them, “including licensure, clean driving records, education levels, credit history, and\\nminimum income to debt ratios;” (2) by requiring Plaintiffs’ staff “to agree to a life-time non-\\nsolicitation agreement;” and (3) by “retain[ing] some authority to approve or disapprove\\nof . . . agency staff selections, above and beyond the imposition of [these] qualification\\nrequirements.” (Id.) This role included the ability of Defendants, without the consent of\\nPlaintiffs, to “fire any agency staff . . . who did not live up to the American Family Code of\\nConduct.” (Id.) Based on these facts, the district court determined Darden factor eight to be\\n“neutral.” (Id. at PageID # 20980.) I believe that Darden factor eight actually supports the\\nstatus of Plaintiffs as employees.\\n\\n The majority’s contrary holding, that the district court necessarily should have\\ndetermined that Darden factor eight supported independent contractor status because it found\\nthat Plaintiffs had “primary authority” over hiring and paying assistants, notably lacks any\\nsupporting authority. The majority cites only this Court’s unpublished decision in Janette, in\\nwhich this Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that she had “no hiring authority” because she\\n“could have hired assistants.” 298 F. App’x at 475. No role of the defendant in hiring and\\npaying the plaintiff’s assistants was discussed in that case, and it is thus inapposite.\\n\\n The majority seems to ultimately rest its argument on its reading of the phrase “primary\\nauthority.” But “primary” does not necessarily mean more than anyone else; rather, it also\\nmeans first in time. See, e.g., Primary, Oxford English Dictionary, http://www.oed.com/ (last\\nvisited December 21, 2018) (“Occurring or existing first in a sequence of events . . . .”); Primary,\\nMerriam-Webster Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ (last visited December 21,\\n2018) (“[F]irst in order of time or development.”). And such usage by the district court when it\\nfound that Plaintiffs had “primary authority over hiring and paying assistants” would be entirely\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 23\\n\\n\\nconsistent with the facts of this case, because Defendants retained “some authority to approve or\\ndisapprove” or to “override” an agent’s staff selections after they had been made. (RE 320,\\nPageID # 20979–80.)\\n\\n IV. Weight to be Afforded the Darden Factors\\n\\n As previously discussed, “the crux of the Darden common law agency test is the hiring\\nparty’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished.” Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525. Accordingly, “this Court has repeatedly held that the employer’s ability to\\ncontrol job performance and the employment opportunities of the aggrieved individual are the\\nmost important of the many factors to be considered.” Marie v. Am. Red Cross, 771 F.3d 344,\\n357 (6th Cir. 2014). In contrast, contractual labels assigned by the parties, while “certainly\\nrelevant,” Weary, 377 F.3d at 525, are less important. See, e.g., Keller, 781 F.3d at 804\\n(“[W]e must look to see whether a worker, even when labeled as an ‘independent contractor,’ is,\\nas a matter of ‘economic reality,’ an employee.”); Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch., Inc.,\\n642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011) (“Whether an employment relationship exists under a given set\\nof circumstances is not fixed by labels that parties may attach to their relationship . . . .”).\\n\\n Recognizing this hierarchy of the Darden factors, the district court found that\\n“[Defendants] and [their] agents entered into Agent Agreements . . . indicat[ing] that the parties\\nintended for [the] agents to be treated as independent contractors.” (RE 320, PageID # 20971–\\n72.) However, the district court also found that “[o]ther internal documents . . . indicate that\\n[Defendants] expected [their] sales managers to exercise control over agents’ methods and\\nmanner of performing their services.” (Id. at PageID # 20972.) For instance, “[Defendants’]\\ntraining manuals actually refer to agents as ‘employees.’” (Id. at PageID # 20983.) The district\\ncourt then analyzed the remaining Darden factors, and determined that they were “almost evenly\\nsplit between favoring employee status and favoring independent contractor status.” (Id.). As a\\nresult, the district court turned back to “the most important of the many factors to be\\nconsidered”—“[t]he employer’s ability to control job performance and the employment\\nopportunities of the aggrieved individual.” (Id. at PageID # 20982.) (quoting Marie, 771 F.3d at\\n357).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 24\\n\\n\\n The district court listed the numerous ways in which Defendants had the ability to control\\nand did control Plaintiffs’ job performance and employment opportunities. These include, but\\nare not limited to, the following: (1) Plaintiffs did not own a book of business; (2) Plaintiffs did\\nnot own any policies; (3) Defendants unilaterally reassigned policies brought in by one agent to\\nothers; (4) Defendants could require Plaintiffs to service policies that they did not initiate,\\nwithout any compensation; (5) Defendants did not allow Plaintiffs to sell insurance from other\\ncompanies not financially connected to Defendants; (6) Defendants actively discouraged and in\\nsome cases prohibited Plaintiffs from taking on other employment, even if it was unrelated to\\ninsurances sales; (7) Defendants required Plaintiffs to sign a one-year non-compete agreement,\\nand required Plaintiffs’ staff to sign a lifetime non-compete agreement; and (8) Defendants\\ntrained their sales managers to believe they were Plaintiffs’ bosses and had the authority to\\ndemand Plaintiffs’ compliance—a belief which many acted upon. On these facts, and in\\naccordance with this analysis, I agree with the district court that Plaintiffs are employees for\\npurposes of ERISA.\\n\\n The majority’s holding to the contrary—that Plaintiffs are independent contractors for\\npurposes of ERISA—is again undermined by the cases on which it purports to rely. The\\nmajority first reasons that “[b]ecause ERISA cases focus on the financial benefits that a company\\nshould have provided . . . the Darden factors that most pertain to financial structure . . . carry\\nmore weight,” as opposed to the employer’s ability to control job performance and the\\nemployment opportunities of the aggrieved individual. But in doing so, the majority relies solely\\non this Court’s decision in Ware, in which this Court stated that “the relative weight given each\\n[Darden] factor may differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” 67 F.3d at\\n578. This Court in Ware then elaborated that the traditionally important control factors are\\n“more relevant in the context of copyright ownership.” Id. While it also noted that the reverse\\nmay be true in the ERISA context—that the traditionally important control factors may be “less\\nimportant,” id.—such speculation was merely dicta, as Ware exclusively concerned employment\\nstatus in the copyright ownership context, and had nothing to do with ERISA. See United States\\nv. Hardin, 539 F.3d 404, 411 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that language in a prior decision was dicta\\nbecause it “was not necessary to the determination of the issue on appeal”). And “one panel of\\nthis [C]ourt is not bound by dicta in a previously published panel opinion.” United States v.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 25\\n\\n\\nBurroughs, 5 F.3d 192, 194 (6th Cir. 1993). Moreover, this characterization of the speculation\\nabout ERISA in Ware is further supported by this Court’s decision in Simpson v. Ernst & Young,\\nan ERISA case decided the year after Ware, in which this Court reaffirmed “the employer’s\\nability to control job performance and employment opportunities of the aggrieved individual as\\nthe most important of many elements to be evaluated” when determining that individual’s\\nemployment status. 100 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 1996).\\n\\n The majority also reasons that the district court “should have considered the parties’\\nexpress agreement to be of greater force.” As briefly discussed above, this reasoning is\\nunpersuasive because the district court properly considered the Agent Agreements as relevant but\\nnot dispositive evidence of independent contractor status. No greater consideration was\\nwarranted, particularly given that the language in the Agent Agreements is contradicted by\\nlanguage in other internal documents, including Defendants’ training manuals, and that\\ncontractual labels are particularly susceptible to manipulation such that over-reliance on them\\nwould “defeat the purpose” of ERISA. Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co., 338 F.3d 557, 575 (6th\\nCir. 2003); see also Commodity Futures Trading Com’n v. Erskine, 512 F.3d 309, 318 (6th Cir.\\n2008).\\n\\n For all of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4363099/\", \"author_raw\": \"CLAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BOGGS"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"CLAY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROGERS"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BOGGS\": \", Circuit\", \"CLAY\": \", Circuit\", \"ROGERS\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585846/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Walid Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-29\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0012p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n WALID JAMMAL; KATHLEEN TUERSLEY; CINDA J. ┐\n DURACHINSKY; NATHAN GARRETT, │\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\n │\n │\n v. > No. 17-4125\n │\n │\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\n FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\n FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\n STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN; │\n AMERICAN FAMILY TERMINATION BENEFITS PLAN; │\n RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN │\n FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP; AMERICAN FAMILY 401K │\n PLAN; GROUP LIFE PLAN; GROUP HEALTH PLAN; │\n GROUP DENTAL PLAN; LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; │\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP MASTER │\n RETIREMENT TRUST; 401K PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE │\n COMMITTEE; COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES AND DISTRICT │\n MANAGER RETIREMENT PLAN, │\n Defendants-Appellants. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\n No. 1:13-cv-00437—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.\n\n Argued: July 31, 2018\n\n Decided and Filed: January 29, 2019\n\n Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nARGUED: Pierre H. Bergeron, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for\nAppellants. Charles J. Crueger, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, for\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 2\n\n\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Pierre H. Bergeron, Lauren S. Kuley, Scott W. Coyle, Colter Paulson,\nSQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gregory V. Mersol, Gilbert Brosky,\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Charles J. Crueger, Erin K.\nDickinson, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, Gregory F. Coleman,\nGREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Knoxville, Tennessee, Edward A. Wallace, Kara A. Elgersma,\nWEXLER WALLACE LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Drew T. Legando, LANDSKRONER GRIECO\nMERRIMAN, LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. J. Philip Calabrese, PORTER WRIGHT\nMORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, C. Darcy Copeland Jalandoni, PORTER\nWRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Shay Dvoretzky, JONES DAY,\nWashington, D.C., Paulo B. McKeeby, Ronald E. Manthey, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS\nLLP, Dallas, Texas, Mary Ellen Signorille, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Washington,\nD.C., Seth R. Lesser, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Rye Brook, New York, for Amici\nCuriae.\n\n BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined. CLAY, J.\n(pp. 16–25), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In this class action, the named plaintiffs represent several\nthousand current and former insurance agents for American Family Insurance Company and its\naffiliates (collectively, “American Family” or “the company”). The agents claim that American\nFamily misclassified them as independent contractors, while treating them as employees, in order\nto avoid paying them benefits in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act\nof 1974 (“ERISA”).\n\n The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal concerns the nature of the parties’ legal\nrelationship: are the plaintiffs employees or independent contractors for American Family? The\ncompany appeals the district court’s judgment that the plaintiffs are employees. Because\nAmerican Family properly classified its agents as independent contractors, we reverse.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 3\n\n\n I\n\n As with many insurance companies, American Family sells its products primarily through\na network of insurance agents. American Family, in keeping with common industry practice,\nclassifies its agents as independent contractors rather than employees.\n\n Taking issue with this designation and the consequences it has on their ability to enjoy\nthe protections of ERISA, the plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against American Family\nin 2013, alleging that the company misclassified them as independent contractors. The plaintiffs\ncontended that their miscategorization “deprived [them] of the rights and protections guaranteed\nby state and federal law to employees, including their rights under ERISA.” They sought, inter\nalia, a declaratory judgment that they are employees for all purposes, including but not limited to\nERISA, and that as employees they are due benefits under ERISA.\n\n Both parties filed several pre-trial motions, including motions by American Family to\ndismiss and later for summary judgment. The plaintiffs, for their part, moved for class\ncertification. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied each of American\nFamily’s motions in whole or in part. The company sought permission from this court to appeal\nthe district court’s order granting class certification, but we denied the company’s request. The\ndistrict court subsequently denied two motions by American Family to decertify the class.\n\n The case then proceeded to trial, which the district court bifurcated to allow for\ndetermination of the threshold question of the plaintiffs’ employment status. Trial of this single\nissue took place before an advisory jury, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1),\nwhich permits district courts to “try any issue with an advisory jury” in an action that is “not\ntriable of right by a jury.”1\n\n During the twelve-day trial, the jury learned that the parties took many steps to structure\ntheir relationship consistent with American Family’s position that its agents are independent\ncontractors. Most pointedly, at the outset of the agents’ tenure with the company, all agents\n\n\n 1Plaintiffsseeking relief under ERISA generally have no right to have their claims decided by a jury. See,\ne.g., Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., 150 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998); Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.,\n123 F.3d 877, 882–83 (6th Cir. 1997); Bair v. Gen. Motors Corp., 895 F.2d 1094, 1096–97 (6th Cir. 1990).\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 4\n\n\nsigned a written agreement stating that they were independent contractors rather than employees.\nIn keeping with this designation, the agents file their taxes as independent contractors and deduct\ntheir business expenses as self-employed business owners. American Family also pays its agents\nin commissions and does not provide them with vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, or paid time\noff.\n\n Moreover, as the district court recounted, “[t]he company calls its agents ‘business\nowners’ and ‘partners’ and tells new agents they will be ‘agency business’ owners and that they\nneed to ‘invest’ in ‘their business.’” The agents work out of their own offices, set their own\nhours, and hire and pay their own staff. They also are responsible for providing most of the\nresources necessary to run their agencies, such as office furniture and office supplies.\n\n But the plaintiffs also presented significant evidence to support their claim that American\nFamily treats them more like employees than independent partners and business owners. The\ncompany classifies everyone in its sales force—other than its agents—as employees.\nNevertheless, the company’s training manuals refer to the agents as “employees.” Each agent\nmust report to an Agency Sales Manager, and the plaintiffs presented testimony that American\nFamily did not train these managers to treat the agents as independent contractors or even make\nthe managers aware that the agents were classified as such.\n\n According to the plaintiffs, the managers exerted a great amount of control over their\nday-to-day activities. The managers insisted, among other required tasks, that the agents\ncomplete daily activity reports, prioritize selling certain insurance policies, and participate in\n“life-call” nights in which the agents had to stay after normal business hours to solicit life\ninsurance by calling prospective customers. The plaintiffs also offered testimony that the\ncompany retained some authority to approve or disapprove of the location of the agents’ offices\nand to be involved in the hiring and firing of the agents’ staff in a way that limited the plaintiffs’\nability to run their own agencies.\n\n The jury also heard testimony that American Family teaches agents everything they need\nto know to become licensed, run an agency, and sell the company’s products. All agents attend a\ntwo-to-three-month-long comprehensive training program run by American Family on how to\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 5\n\n\nsell insurance and how to operate an agency. Once hired, the agents must sell insurance\nexclusively for American Family, and they are discouraged—but not forbidden—from taking\nother work, even if it is unrelated to the insurance industry. There is no limit on the duration of\nthe agency relationship, and American Family describes the agency position as a career position.\nAlthough the agents are not eligible for the same pension or retirement plans given to the\ncompany’s employees, they are offered an “extended earnings” benefit that is described to them\nas a retirement plan.2 When and if their relationship with the company does come to an end, the\nagents are prohibited for a year from soliciting business from any of their former American\nFamily customers. And unlike most business owners, the agents cannot sell their agencies or\nassign any rights to income from their agencies.\n\n At the close of the trial, the court presented the advisory jury with the following\ninterrogatory:\n\n Please answer the following question “yes” or “no” according to your findings:\n Did Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are employees\n of Defendant American Family?\n\nThe jury answered “yes.”\n\n After giving the parties a final opportunity to present their proposed findings of fact and\nconclusions of law, the court issued an opinion in which it acknowledged that although it was not\nbound by the advisory jury’s determination, it believed that the jury’s verdict “comport[ed] with\nthe weight of the evidence presented at trial.” Accordingly, the district court determined that the\nagents were employees for the purposes of ERISA.\n\n The district court certified its ruling for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1292(b), and American Family filed a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order.\n\n\n\n\n 2The “extended earnings” program offered a lifetime annuity to agents and was reported as one of\nAmerican Family’s “Defined Benefit Plans” in its annual statement filed with insurance regulators. Agents were\nautomatically enrolled in these plans, did not contribute to these plans, and received increasing benefits with\nincreasing years of service.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 6\n\n\nWe granted permission to appeal, which American Family did, arguing that the district court\nerred in determining that the plaintiffs are employees.3\n\n II\n\n A\n\n The determination of whether a plaintiff qualifies as an employee under ERISA is a\nmixed question of law and fact that a judge normally can make as a matter of law. See Weary v.\nCochran, 377 F.3d 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2004); Waxman v. Luna, 881 F.2d 237, 240 (6th Cir.\n1989). After a bench trial to determine a plaintiff’s employment status, this court typically\nreviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including its\nultimate decision about the plaintiff’s status, de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch.,\nInc., 642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011). However, “[o]n interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\n1292(b), our review is limited to the district court’s conclusions of law.” Sheet Metal Emp’rs\nIndus. Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co., 830 F.3d 358, 361 (6th Cir. 2016). We review\nthose conclusions de novo, but “we have no authority to review the district court’s findings of\nfact.” Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2001).\n\n “ERISA is a comprehensive statute designed to promote the interests of employees and\ntheir beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983).\nThe plaintiffs brought this action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), which enables “participant[s]” in an\nemployee benefit plan to enforce ERISA’s substantive provisions. Under ERISA, a “participant”\nis “any employee or former employee of an employer . . . who is or may become eligible to\nreceive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such\nemployer.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). Therefore, the plaintiffs can prevail on their ERISA claims\nonly if they can show that they were American Family’s employees. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.\nDarden, 503 U.S. 318, 321 (1992).\n\n ERISA defines an “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C.\n§ 1002(6). An “employer,” in turn, “means any person acting directly as an employer, or\n\n 3The company also contends that the court’s determination was erroneous because it relied on non-\nrepresentative class evidence. Because we decide the case on other grounds, we do not reach this issue.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 7\n\n\nindirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan.” § 1002(5).\nBecause these definitions provide little guidance as to the meaning of “employee,” “the Supreme\nCourt has instructed courts to interpret the term by ‘incorporating the common law of agency.’”\nBryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 656 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting\nWare v. United States, 67 F.3d 574, 576 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Darden, 503 U.S. at 322–24)).\n\n In Darden, the Supreme Court provided the following standard “for determining who\nqualifies as an ‘employee’ under ERISA.” 503 U.S. at 323.\n\n In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common\n law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and\n means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to\n this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the\n location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether\n the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the\n extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method\n of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the\n work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is\n in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired\n party.\n\nId. at 323–24 (quoting Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751–52 (1989)).\nIn addition to these factors (“the Darden factors”), we have held that an express agreement\nbetween the parties concerning employment status is also a relevant consideration. See Weary,\n377 F.3d at 525.\n\n The “crux of Darden’s common law agency test is ‘the hiring party’s right to control the\nmanner and means by which the product is accomplished.’” Ibid. (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at\n323). Thus, “our analysis of [the Darden] factors . . . reflects upon, and is relevant to, this core\nissue of control.” Ibid. “[T]he relative weight given each factor may differ depending upon the\nlegal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. “Notwithstanding this recognition\nthat certain factors may deserve added weight in some contexts, a court must evaluate all of the\nincidents of the employment relationship.” Ibid.; see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (“Since the\ncommon-law test contains ‘no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the\nanswer, . . . all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 8\n\n\nfactor being decisive.’” (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S.\n254, 258 (1968)).\n\n Applying the test from Darden and its progeny, the district court determined that the\nplaintiffs were employees rather than independent contractors. After deciding that the Darden\nfactors were “almost evenly split between favoring employee status and favoring independent\ncontractor status,” the court proceeded to a broader analysis of the level of control that American\nFamily exercised over its agents. Ultimately, the court concluded that “[t]he degree of control\nmanagers were encouraged to exercise was inconsistent with independent contractor status and\nwas more in line with the level of control a manager would be expected to exert over an\nemployee.” This, along with the evidence related to the other Darden factors, led the court to\ndetermine that the plaintiffs were employees during the relevant class period.\n\n B\n\n Since in this interlocutory appeal we may review only the district court’s conclusions of\nlaw, we must first decide which of the court’s determinations were matters of law and which\nwere factual. This much is clear: the district court’s findings underlying its holding on each of\nthe Darden factors are factual findings, and the court’s ultimate conclusion as to whether the\nplaintiffs were employees is a question of law.\n\n But what of the court’s conclusions about the Darden factors—both of their existence\nand of the weight to be assigned them? Are these factual findings or conclusions of law?\nAlthough neither party has provided much briefing on this question, the plaintiffs suggest that\nthese are issues of fact, while American Family claims that they are issues of law. The parties’\ndispute is understandable, as we have yet to clarify whether and to what extent a court’s\nconclusions about the individual factors that make up the Darden standard are factual or legal in\nnature. Indeed, some of our decisions seem to be in tension with one another, with some\nindicating that a district court’s determinations on the Darden factors are factual findings, see\nPeno Trucking, Inc. v. C.I.R., 296 F. App’x 449, 454–60 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating, first, that the\nappropriate rule is to review factual findings for clear error and, second, that the Tax Court’s\nfindings about control and other factors were not clearly erroneous); Moore v. Lafayette Life Ins.,\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 9\n\n\n458 F.3d 416, 440 (6th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court’s findings on Darden factors\nwere not clearly erroneous), and others suggesting that they are legal conclusions, see Janette v.\nAm. Fid. Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App’x 467, 473–74 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing the proper tests for the\ncontrol factor and skill-required factor); Weary, 377 F.3d at 526 (explaining that a certain degree\nof limited authority is not the type of control that establishes an employer-employee\nrelationship); id. at 532 (arguing that the majority erred in defining the skill-required factor and\nexplaining what the “legal issue” is concerning that factor) (Clay, J., dissenting).\n\n Other circuits, however, have explicitly considered this question and have come down on\nthe side of treating these as factual matters subject to review for clear error. According to our\nsister circuits:\n\n The existence and degree of each factor is a question of fact while the legal\n conclusion to be drawn from those facts—whether workers are employees or\n independent contractors—is a question of law. Thus, a district court’s findings as\n to the underlying factors must be accepted unless clearly erroneous, while review\n of the ultimate question of employment status is de novo.\n\nBrock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1988) (applying multi-factor\n“economic reality” test to claim under FLSA); Berger Transfer & Storage v. Cent. States, Se.\nand Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir. 1996); Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d\n802, 805 (10th Cir. 1989).\n\n Granting due weight to our own and our sister circuits’ jurisprudence, we do not agree\nthat a district court’s conclusion relating to the existence and degree of each Darden factor is\nentirely a question of fact. There is a distinction between a lower court’s factual findings, which\nwe review for clear error, and “the district court’s application of the legal standard to them,”\nwhich we review de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School, Inc., 642 F.3d 518, 522\n(6th Cir. 2011). The lower court’s determination of a Darden factor often necessarily involves\nthe application of a legal standard to particular factual findings. Take, for example, Darden’s\nfirst factor: “[W]hether the skill [required of an agent] is an independent discipline\n(or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was) learned elsewhere.”\nWeary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 323. As Judge Clay\nobserved in his dissent in Weary, there is a “legal issue” inherent in the first factor as to whether\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 10\n\n\nto consider “the amount of skill required” or rather “whether the skill is an independent\ndiscipline (or profession) that is separate from the business.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J.,\ndissenting). Each Darden factor is thus itself a “legal standard” that the district court is applying\nto the facts. See also Ware, 67 F.3d at 576 (distinguishing the “facts and circumstances”\nunderlying the Darden factors from both “the legal meaning and weight that those facts should\nbe given individually and in the aggregate”) (emphasis added). It is therefore appropriate for us\nto review de novo those determinations to the extent that they involve the application of a legal\nstandard to a set of facts.\n\n What’s more, as we recognized in Ware, “the relative weight given to each [Darden]\nfactor may differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Id. at 578 (emphasis\nadded). Thus, for example, “a hiring party’s control is more relevant in the context of copyright\nownership, because the statute assigns ownership on the basis of authorship unless the parties\nexplicitly agree otherwise,” but “less important in an ERISA context.” Ibid. This implies that\ncertain factors may carry more or less weight depending on the particular legal context in which\nthe independent-contractor relationship is being determined. Ibid. (noting that the “same test\nmight produce disparate results in different contexts”). Accordingly, it is also appropriate for us\nto review de novo the district court’s weight assigned to of each of the Darden factors, given the\nlegal context in which the claim has been brought.\n\n III\n\n A\n\n Here, the district court incorrectly applied the legal standards in determining the\nexistence of the Darden factors relating to (1) the skill required of an agent and (2) the hiring and\npaying of assistants. Had the court applied those standards properly, it would have found that\nthose factors actually favored independent-contractor status. We analyze each of those factors\nbelow.4\n\n\n\n 4Since we do not find that the district court applied an improper legal standard to any of the other Darden\nfactors, we do not address them here.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 11\n\n\n The first factor under Darden looks to “whether the skill [required of an agent] is an\nindependent discipline (or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was)\nlearned elsewhere.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Janette, 298 F. App’x\nat 474. The district court held that the “amount of skill” factor under Darden weighs “slightly in\nfavor of employee status” primarily on the basis that American Family “sought out potential\nagents who were untrained.” In doing so, the district court erred.\n\n This circuit has previously held that the skill required of insurance agents weighs in favor\nof independent-contractor status because “the sale of insurance is a highly specialized field” that\nrequires “considerable training, education, and skill.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 526–27 (internal\nquotations omitted). The skill inquiry centers on whether the skill is an independent discipline\nthat “could be” learned elsewhere. Id. at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting). Though American Family\npreferred hiring untrained, and often unlicensed, agents, the underlying discipline of selling\ninsurance remains the same regardless of American Family’s hiring preferences. Ibid.\n(“[B]ecause the skill of selling insurance is a general one, the majority may be correct in its\nconclusion that this factor favors independent contractor status.”). The district court therefore\nmisapplied the legal standard to the facts; the correct application would have weighed this factor\nin favor of independent contractor status, as this circuit has done previously.\n\n Darden’s eighth factor examines “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants.”\nDarden, 503 U.S. at 323–24. The court mistakenly weighed this factor as “neutral” after\nconcluding that the agents “had primary authority to hire their own staff” and were solely\nresponsible for all “staff compensation matters.”\n\n The district court found, as a factual matter, that American Family agents were\nresponsible for paying their own staff, determining and paying for any benefits and taxes\nassociated with that staff, and deciding whether to classify their staff as employees or\nindependent contractors. While American Family provided “pre-approved” candidates, whom\nthe agents could select as their staff, it did not require the agents to hire these pre-screened\ncandidates. Agents also had sole discretion in staff-compensation matters and the sole\nresponsibility to withhold and remit taxes to the federal government as the employers of their\nstaff.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 12\n\n\n On the other hand, American Family imposed qualifications on appointed agency staff,\nincluding state licensure, clean driving records, education levels, credit history, and minimum\nincome-to-debt ratios. American Family did not provide computer access to any non-approved\nappointed agency staff and required agency staff to agree to a lifetime non-solicitation\nagreement. American Family had the right to fire any agency staff, appointed or non-appointed,\nwho did not live up to the American Family Code of Conduct, and it retained the right, although\nrarely exercised, to fire agency staff for any reason. American Family managers were also\nevaluated on the number of staff employed by their agents and would sometimes offer monetary\nsubsidies to agents to hire more staff.\n\n Considering all of these facts, the district court determined that “[a]lthough American\nFamily retained some right to override an agent’s hiring and firing decision, on balance, agents\nhad primary authority over hiring and paying their assistants.” Yet the court inexplicably\nconcluded from that finding that the factor was “neutral.” This conclusion was contrary to\nDarden’s language. If the hired party has the “primary authority over hiring and paying its own\nassistants,” the Darden factor regarding “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants”\nshould weigh in favor of independent-contractor status. Janette, 298 F. App’x at 475–76\n(Because plaintiff “could have hired assistants, at her expense,” the factor favored independent-\ncontractor status.). Any other conclusion conflicts with Darden’s clear language.\n\n B\n\n Further, given our determination regarding the existence of each of the Darden factors,5\nthe district court also erred by not properly weighing those factors that are particularly significant\nin the legal context of ERISA eligibility. Darden asks us to look at the “hiring party’s right to\ncontrol the manner and means by which the product is accomplished,” which we have\ndetermined to be “a broad consideration that is embodied in many of the specific factors\narticulated” there. Weary, 377 F.3d at 525. But “the relative weight given each [Darden] factor\nmay differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. In\nparticular, “control and supervision is less important in an ERISA context, where a court is\n\n 5That is to say, whether each Darden factor favors independent-contractor or employee status.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 13\n\n\ndetermining whether an employer has assumed responsibility for a person’s pension status.”\nIbid. Because ERISA cases focus on the financial benefits that a company should have provided,\nthe financial structure of the company-agent relationship guides the inquiry. Here, the Darden\nfactors that most pertain to that financial structure favor independent-contractor status and,\naccordingly, carry more weight in the ERISA context.\n\n In this case, the district court found that the insurance agents invested heavily in their\noffices and instrumentalities, paid rent and worked out of their own offices, earned commissions\non sales, were not eligible for employment benefits, and paid taxes as independent contractors.\nAccordingly, the court weighed factors two (the source of the instrumentalities and tools), three\n(the location of the work), seven (method of payment), eleven (provision of employee benefits),\nand twelve (tax treatment) in favor of independent-contractor status.6 We have now corrected\nthe district court’s weighing of factors one (the skill required) and eight (the hired party’s role in\nhiring and paying assistants) to favor independent-contractor status, as well. Because this\ninquiry exists in the legal context of ERISA benefits, this collection of factors—particularly the\nones relating to the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the method of payment, the\nprovision of employee benefits, and the agents’ tax treatment—is especially important in\ndetermining the parties’ financial structure. Accordingly, these factors should have carried\ngreater weight in the district court’s final analysis. Had the court properly weighed those factors\nin accordance with their significance, it would have determined that the entire mix of Darden\nfactors favored independent-contractor status.\n\n As further evidence of the financial structure of the parties’ relationship, the lower court\nshould have also given greater weight to the parties’ express agreement. In determining the\nparties’ relationship in the Darden context, we have several times “look[ed] to any express\nagreement between the parties as to their status as it is the best evidence of their intent” and\nplaced great weight on that agreement. Janette, 298 F. App’x. at 471; Weary, 377 F.3d at 525\n(noting that the existence of a contract characterizing Weary as an independent contractor is\n\n\n 6The district court weighed the “method of payment” factor in favor of independent-contractor status for\nagents “once they began selling policies out of their own office.” During the agents’ “training period,” the court\nweighed the factor in favor of employee status.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 14\n\n\n“certainly relevant to the inquiry” and shows “how the parties themselves viewed the nature of\ntheir working relationship”). Our sister circuits have adopted this approach, as well. See Brown\nv. J. Kaz., Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that an independent-contractor\nagreement “is strong evidence” of independent-contractor status); Schwieger v. Farm Bureau\nIns. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir. 2000) (same). A written contract shows “how the\nparties themselves viewed the nature of their working relationship” and therefore carries great—\nbut not dispositive—weight in determining an independent-contractor relationship. Weary,\n377 F.3d at 525.\n\n The Agent Agreement governing the parties’ business relationship here indicates that\nthey structured their relationship so that the agents should be treated as independent contractors.\nEach Agreement contained a paragraph either identical to or substantively similar to the\nfollowing:\n\n It is the intent of the parties hereto that you are not an employee of the Company\n for any purpose, but are an independent contractor for all purposes, including\n federal taxation with full control of your activities and the right to exercise\n independent judgment as to time, place and manner of soliciting insurance,\n servicing policyholders and otherwise carrying out the provisions of this\n agreement. As an independent contractor you are responsible for your self-\n employment taxes and are not eligible for various employee benefits such as\n Workers and Unemployment Compensation.\n\nThe Agreement also provides that:\n\n Rates, rules, regulations and all provisions contained in the Company’s Agent’s\n Manuals and all changes to them shall be binding upon you. If any inconsistency\n or ambiguity exists between this agreement and such rate, rule, regulation,\n provision or other statement or statements, whether written or oral, this agreement\n shall control.\n\n(emphasis added). The Agency Agreement therefore states in wholly unambiguous terms that\nagents are independent contractors who retain “full control” over several facets of their business.\n\n The district court correctly recognized that the agreement favored independent-contractor\nstatus. But the court apparently did not weigh this important component when reaching its\nconclusion regarding independent-contractor status. Had the lower court given this express\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 15\n\n\nagreement proper consideration, it would have further swung the balance in favor of\nindependent-contractor status.\n\n IV\n\n This court has time and again declared insurance agents to have independent-contractor\nstatus—and appellees have presented no case in which we have not done so. See, e.g., Weary,\n377 F.3d at 524; Wolcott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 245, 251 (6th Cir. 1989). Some\nof our sister circuits have in fact already found American Family agents to be independent\ncontractors in other contexts. Wortham v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 385 F.3d 1139, 1140–41 (8th\nCir. 2004); Moore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 90-3107, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13574, *3\n(7th Cir. June 25, 1991). The plaintiffs have not shown that the facts here are so radically\ndifferent from these cases to justify what would be a significant departure from these rulings,\nespecially in the “legal context” of ERISA eligibility where we have held that “control and\nsupervision is less important” than the financial structure of the parties’ relationship. Ware, 67\nF.3d at 578. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance\nwith this holding.\n\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 16\n\n\n _________________\n\n DISSENT\n _________________\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Walid Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-29\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0012p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n WALID JAMMAL; KATHLEEN TUERSLEY; CINDA J. ┐\\n DURACHINSKY; NATHAN GARRETT, │\\n Plaintiffs-Appellees, │\\n │\\n │\\n v. > No. 17-4125\\n │\\n │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN │\\n STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN; │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY TERMINATION BENEFITS PLAN; │\\n RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AMERICAN │\\n FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP; AMERICAN FAMILY 401K │\\n PLAN; GROUP LIFE PLAN; GROUP HEALTH PLAN; │\\n GROUP DENTAL PLAN; LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN; │\\n AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE GROUP MASTER │\\n RETIREMENT TRUST; 401K PLAN ADMINISTRATIVE │\\n COMMITTEE; COMMITTEE OF EMPLOYEES AND DISTRICT │\\n MANAGER RETIREMENT PLAN, │\\n Defendants-Appellants. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.\\n No. 1:13-cv-00437—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.\\n\\n Argued: July 31, 2018\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 29, 2019\\n\\n Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nARGUED: Pierre H. Bergeron, SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, for\\nAppellants. Charles J. Crueger, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, for\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nAppellees. ON BRIEF: Pierre H. Bergeron, Lauren S. Kuley, Scott W. Coyle, Colter Paulson,\\nSQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gregory V. Mersol, Gilbert Brosky,\\nBAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants. Charles J. Crueger, Erin K.\\nDickinson, CRUGER DICKINSON LLC, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, Gregory F. Coleman,\\nGREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Knoxville, Tennessee, Edward A. Wallace, Kara A. Elgersma,\\nWEXLER WALLACE LLP, Chicago, Illinois, Drew T. Legando, LANDSKRONER GRIECO\\nMERRIMAN, LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellees. J. Philip Calabrese, PORTER WRIGHT\\nMORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, C. Darcy Copeland Jalandoni, PORTER\\nWRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Shay Dvoretzky, JONES DAY,\\nWashington, D.C., Paulo B. McKeeby, Ronald E. Manthey, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS\\nLLP, Dallas, Texas, Mary Ellen Signorille, AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION, Washington,\\nD.C., Seth R. Lesser, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, Rye Brook, New York, for Amici\\nCuriae.\\n\\n BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which ROGERS, J., joined. CLAY, J.\\n(pp. 16–25), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n BOGGS, Circuit Judge. In this class action, the named plaintiffs represent several\\nthousand current and former insurance agents for American Family Insurance Company and its\\naffiliates (collectively, “American Family” or “the company”). The agents claim that American\\nFamily misclassified them as independent contractors, while treating them as employees, in order\\nto avoid paying them benefits in compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act\\nof 1974 (“ERISA”).\\n\\n The sole issue in this interlocutory appeal concerns the nature of the parties’ legal\\nrelationship: are the plaintiffs employees or independent contractors for American Family? The\\ncompany appeals the district court’s judgment that the plaintiffs are employees. Because\\nAmerican Family properly classified its agents as independent contractors, we reverse.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n I\\n\\n As with many insurance companies, American Family sells its products primarily through\\na network of insurance agents. American Family, in keeping with common industry practice,\\nclassifies its agents as independent contractors rather than employees.\\n\\n Taking issue with this designation and the consequences it has on their ability to enjoy\\nthe protections of ERISA, the plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against American Family\\nin 2013, alleging that the company misclassified them as independent contractors. The plaintiffs\\ncontended that their miscategorization “deprived [them] of the rights and protections guaranteed\\nby state and federal law to employees, including their rights under ERISA.” They sought, inter\\nalia, a declaratory judgment that they are employees for all purposes, including but not limited to\\nERISA, and that as employees they are due benefits under ERISA.\\n\\n Both parties filed several pre-trial motions, including motions by American Family to\\ndismiss and later for summary judgment. The plaintiffs, for their part, moved for class\\ncertification. The district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and denied each of American\\nFamily’s motions in whole or in part. The company sought permission from this court to appeal\\nthe district court’s order granting class certification, but we denied the company’s request. The\\ndistrict court subsequently denied two motions by American Family to decertify the class.\\n\\n The case then proceeded to trial, which the district court bifurcated to allow for\\ndetermination of the threshold question of the plaintiffs’ employment status. Trial of this single\\nissue took place before an advisory jury, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(1),\\nwhich permits district courts to “try any issue with an advisory jury” in an action that is “not\\ntriable of right by a jury.”1\\n\\n During the twelve-day trial, the jury learned that the parties took many steps to structure\\ntheir relationship consistent with American Family’s position that its agents are independent\\ncontractors. Most pointedly, at the outset of the agents’ tenure with the company, all agents\\n\\n\\n 1Plaintiffsseeking relief under ERISA generally have no right to have their claims decided by a jury. See,\\ne.g., Wilkins v. Baptist Healthcare Sys., 150 F.3d 609, 616 (6th Cir. 1998); Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co.,\\n123 F.3d 877, 882–83 (6th Cir. 1997); Bair v. Gen. Motors Corp., 895 F.2d 1094, 1096–97 (6th Cir. 1990).\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\nsigned a written agreement stating that they were independent contractors rather than employees.\\nIn keeping with this designation, the agents file their taxes as independent contractors and deduct\\ntheir business expenses as self-employed business owners. American Family also pays its agents\\nin commissions and does not provide them with vacation pay, holiday pay, sick pay, or paid time\\noff.\\n\\n Moreover, as the district court recounted, “[t]he company calls its agents ‘business\\nowners’ and ‘partners’ and tells new agents they will be ‘agency business’ owners and that they\\nneed to ‘invest’ in ‘their business.’” The agents work out of their own offices, set their own\\nhours, and hire and pay their own staff. They also are responsible for providing most of the\\nresources necessary to run their agencies, such as office furniture and office supplies.\\n\\n But the plaintiffs also presented significant evidence to support their claim that American\\nFamily treats them more like employees than independent partners and business owners. The\\ncompany classifies everyone in its sales force—other than its agents—as employees.\\nNevertheless, the company’s training manuals refer to the agents as “employees.” Each agent\\nmust report to an Agency Sales Manager, and the plaintiffs presented testimony that American\\nFamily did not train these managers to treat the agents as independent contractors or even make\\nthe managers aware that the agents were classified as such.\\n\\n According to the plaintiffs, the managers exerted a great amount of control over their\\nday-to-day activities. The managers insisted, among other required tasks, that the agents\\ncomplete daily activity reports, prioritize selling certain insurance policies, and participate in\\n“life-call” nights in which the agents had to stay after normal business hours to solicit life\\ninsurance by calling prospective customers. The plaintiffs also offered testimony that the\\ncompany retained some authority to approve or disapprove of the location of the agents’ offices\\nand to be involved in the hiring and firing of the agents’ staff in a way that limited the plaintiffs’\\nability to run their own agencies.\\n\\n The jury also heard testimony that American Family teaches agents everything they need\\nto know to become licensed, run an agency, and sell the company’s products. All agents attend a\\ntwo-to-three-month-long comprehensive training program run by American Family on how to\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\nsell insurance and how to operate an agency. Once hired, the agents must sell insurance\\nexclusively for American Family, and they are discouraged—but not forbidden—from taking\\nother work, even if it is unrelated to the insurance industry. There is no limit on the duration of\\nthe agency relationship, and American Family describes the agency position as a career position.\\nAlthough the agents are not eligible for the same pension or retirement plans given to the\\ncompany’s employees, they are offered an “extended earnings” benefit that is described to them\\nas a retirement plan.2 When and if their relationship with the company does come to an end, the\\nagents are prohibited for a year from soliciting business from any of their former American\\nFamily customers. And unlike most business owners, the agents cannot sell their agencies or\\nassign any rights to income from their agencies.\\n\\n At the close of the trial, the court presented the advisory jury with the following\\ninterrogatory:\\n\\n Please answer the following question “yes” or “no” according to your findings:\\n Did Plaintiffs prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they are employees\\n of Defendant American Family?\\n\\nThe jury answered “yes.”\\n\\n After giving the parties a final opportunity to present their proposed findings of fact and\\nconclusions of law, the court issued an opinion in which it acknowledged that although it was not\\nbound by the advisory jury’s determination, it believed that the jury’s verdict “comport[ed] with\\nthe weight of the evidence presented at trial.” Accordingly, the district court determined that the\\nagents were employees for the purposes of ERISA.\\n\\n The district court certified its ruling for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1292(b), and American Family filed a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s order.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n 2The “extended earnings” program offered a lifetime annuity to agents and was reported as one of\\nAmerican Family’s “Defined Benefit Plans” in its annual statement filed with insurance regulators. Agents were\\nautomatically enrolled in these plans, did not contribute to these plans, and received increasing benefits with\\nincreasing years of service.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\nWe granted permission to appeal, which American Family did, arguing that the district court\\nerred in determining that the plaintiffs are employees.3\\n\\n II\\n\\n A\\n\\n The determination of whether a plaintiff qualifies as an employee under ERISA is a\\nmixed question of law and fact that a judge normally can make as a matter of law. See Weary v.\\nCochran, 377 F.3d 522, 524 (6th Cir. 2004); Waxman v. Luna, 881 F.2d 237, 240 (6th Cir.\\n1989). After a bench trial to determine a plaintiff’s employment status, this court typically\\nreviews a district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions, including its\\nultimate decision about the plaintiff’s status, de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium & Sch.,\\nInc., 642 F.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2011). However, “[o]n interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C.\\n1292(b), our review is limited to the district court’s conclusions of law.” Sheet Metal Emp’rs\\nIndus. Promotion Fund v. Absolut Balancing Co., 830 F.3d 358, 361 (6th Cir. 2016). We review\\nthose conclusions de novo, but “we have no authority to review the district court’s findings of\\nfact.” Nw. Ohio Adm’rs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018, 1023 (6th Cir. 2001).\\n\\n “ERISA is a comprehensive statute designed to promote the interests of employees and\\ntheir beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U.S. 85, 90 (1983).\\nThe plaintiffs brought this action under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), which enables “participant[s]” in an\\nemployee benefit plan to enforce ERISA’s substantive provisions. Under ERISA, a “participant”\\nis “any employee or former employee of an employer . . . who is or may become eligible to\\nreceive a benefit of any type from an employee benefit plan which covers employees of such\\nemployer.” 29 U.S.C. § 1002(7). Therefore, the plaintiffs can prevail on their ERISA claims\\nonly if they can show that they were American Family’s employees. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v.\\nDarden, 503 U.S. 318, 321 (1992).\\n\\n ERISA defines an “employee” as “any individual employed by an employer.” 29 U.S.C.\\n§ 1002(6). An “employer,” in turn, “means any person acting directly as an employer, or\\n\\n 3The company also contends that the court’s determination was erroneous because it relied on non-\\nrepresentative class evidence. Because we decide the case on other grounds, we do not reach this issue.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nindirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan.” § 1002(5).\\nBecause these definitions provide little guidance as to the meaning of “employee,” “the Supreme\\nCourt has instructed courts to interpret the term by ‘incorporating the common law of agency.’”\\nBryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 656 F.3d 348, 352 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting\\nWare v. United States, 67 F.3d 574, 576 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Darden, 503 U.S. at 322–24)).\\n\\n In Darden, the Supreme Court provided the following standard “for determining who\\nqualifies as an ‘employee’ under ERISA.” 503 U.S. at 323.\\n\\n In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common\\n law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and\\n means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to\\n this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the\\n location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether\\n the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the\\n extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method\\n of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the\\n work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is\\n in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired\\n party.\\n\\nId. at 323–24 (quoting Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751–52 (1989)).\\nIn addition to these factors (“the Darden factors”), we have held that an express agreement\\nbetween the parties concerning employment status is also a relevant consideration. See Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525.\\n\\n The “crux of Darden’s common law agency test is ‘the hiring party’s right to control the\\nmanner and means by which the product is accomplished.’” Ibid. (quoting Darden, 503 U.S. at\\n323). Thus, “our analysis of [the Darden] factors . . . reflects upon, and is relevant to, this core\\nissue of control.” Ibid. “[T]he relative weight given each factor may differ depending upon the\\nlegal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. “Notwithstanding this recognition\\nthat certain factors may deserve added weight in some contexts, a court must evaluate all of the\\nincidents of the employment relationship.” Ibid.; see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 324 (“Since the\\ncommon-law test contains ‘no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the\\nanswer, . . . all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nfactor being decisive.’” (alteration in original) (quoting NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 390 U.S.\\n254, 258 (1968)).\\n\\n Applying the test from Darden and its progeny, the district court determined that the\\nplaintiffs were employees rather than independent contractors. After deciding that the Darden\\nfactors were “almost evenly split between favoring employee status and favoring independent\\ncontractor status,” the court proceeded to a broader analysis of the level of control that American\\nFamily exercised over its agents. Ultimately, the court concluded that “[t]he degree of control\\nmanagers were encouraged to exercise was inconsistent with independent contractor status and\\nwas more in line with the level of control a manager would be expected to exert over an\\nemployee.” This, along with the evidence related to the other Darden factors, led the court to\\ndetermine that the plaintiffs were employees during the relevant class period.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Since in this interlocutory appeal we may review only the district court’s conclusions of\\nlaw, we must first decide which of the court’s determinations were matters of law and which\\nwere factual. This much is clear: the district court’s findings underlying its holding on each of\\nthe Darden factors are factual findings, and the court’s ultimate conclusion as to whether the\\nplaintiffs were employees is a question of law.\\n\\n But what of the court’s conclusions about the Darden factors—both of their existence\\nand of the weight to be assigned them? Are these factual findings or conclusions of law?\\nAlthough neither party has provided much briefing on this question, the plaintiffs suggest that\\nthese are issues of fact, while American Family claims that they are issues of law. The parties’\\ndispute is understandable, as we have yet to clarify whether and to what extent a court’s\\nconclusions about the individual factors that make up the Darden standard are factual or legal in\\nnature. Indeed, some of our decisions seem to be in tension with one another, with some\\nindicating that a district court’s determinations on the Darden factors are factual findings, see\\nPeno Trucking, Inc. v. C.I.R., 296 F. App’x 449, 454–60 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating, first, that the\\nappropriate rule is to review factual findings for clear error and, second, that the Tax Court’s\\nfindings about control and other factors were not clearly erroneous); Moore v. Lafayette Life Ins.,\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\n458 F.3d 416, 440 (6th Cir. 2006) (concluding that the district court’s findings on Darden factors\\nwere not clearly erroneous), and others suggesting that they are legal conclusions, see Janette v.\\nAm. Fid. Grp., Ltd., 298 F. App’x 467, 473–74 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing the proper tests for the\\ncontrol factor and skill-required factor); Weary, 377 F.3d at 526 (explaining that a certain degree\\nof limited authority is not the type of control that establishes an employer-employee\\nrelationship); id. at 532 (arguing that the majority erred in defining the skill-required factor and\\nexplaining what the “legal issue” is concerning that factor) (Clay, J., dissenting).\\n\\n Other circuits, however, have explicitly considered this question and have come down on\\nthe side of treating these as factual matters subject to review for clear error. According to our\\nsister circuits:\\n\\n The existence and degree of each factor is a question of fact while the legal\\n conclusion to be drawn from those facts—whether workers are employees or\\n independent contractors—is a question of law. Thus, a district court’s findings as\\n to the underlying factors must be accepted unless clearly erroneous, while review\\n of the ultimate question of employment status is de novo.\\n\\nBrock v. Superior Care, Inc., 840 F.2d 1054, 1059 (2d Cir. 1988) (applying multi-factor\\n“economic reality” test to claim under FLSA); Berger Transfer & Storage v. Cent. States, Se.\\nand Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 85 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (8th Cir. 1996); Dole v. Snell, 875 F.2d\\n802, 805 (10th Cir. 1989).\\n\\n Granting due weight to our own and our sister circuits’ jurisprudence, we do not agree\\nthat a district court’s conclusion relating to the existence and degree of each Darden factor is\\nentirely a question of fact. There is a distinction between a lower court’s factual findings, which\\nwe review for clear error, and “the district court’s application of the legal standard to them,”\\nwhich we review de novo. Solis v. Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School, Inc., 642 F.3d 518, 522\\n(6th Cir. 2011). The lower court’s determination of a Darden factor often necessarily involves\\nthe application of a legal standard to particular factual findings. Take, for example, Darden’s\\nfirst factor: “[W]hether the skill [required of an agent] is an independent discipline\\n(or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was) learned elsewhere.”\\nWeary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Darden, 503 U.S. at 323. As Judge Clay\\nobserved in his dissent in Weary, there is a “legal issue” inherent in the first factor as to whether\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\nto consider “the amount of skill required” or rather “whether the skill is an independent\\ndiscipline (or profession) that is separate from the business.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J.,\\ndissenting). Each Darden factor is thus itself a “legal standard” that the district court is applying\\nto the facts. See also Ware, 67 F.3d at 576 (distinguishing the “facts and circumstances”\\nunderlying the Darden factors from both “the legal meaning and weight that those facts should\\nbe given individually and in the aggregate”) (emphasis added). It is therefore appropriate for us\\nto review de novo those determinations to the extent that they involve the application of a legal\\nstandard to a set of facts.\\n\\n What’s more, as we recognized in Ware, “the relative weight given to each [Darden]\\nfactor may differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Id. at 578 (emphasis\\nadded). Thus, for example, “a hiring party’s control is more relevant in the context of copyright\\nownership, because the statute assigns ownership on the basis of authorship unless the parties\\nexplicitly agree otherwise,” but “less important in an ERISA context.” Ibid. This implies that\\ncertain factors may carry more or less weight depending on the particular legal context in which\\nthe independent-contractor relationship is being determined. Ibid. (noting that the “same test\\nmight produce disparate results in different contexts”). Accordingly, it is also appropriate for us\\nto review de novo the district court’s weight assigned to of each of the Darden factors, given the\\nlegal context in which the claim has been brought.\\n\\n III\\n\\n A\\n\\n Here, the district court incorrectly applied the legal standards in determining the\\nexistence of the Darden factors relating to (1) the skill required of an agent and (2) the hiring and\\npaying of assistants. Had the court applied those standards properly, it would have found that\\nthose factors actually favored independent-contractor status. We analyze each of those factors\\nbelow.4\\n\\n\\n\\n 4Since we do not find that the district court applied an improper legal standard to any of the other Darden\\nfactors, we do not address them here.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\n The first factor under Darden looks to “whether the skill [required of an agent] is an\\nindependent discipline (or profession) that is separate from the business and could be (or was)\\nlearned elsewhere.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting); see also Janette, 298 F. App’x\\nat 474. The district court held that the “amount of skill” factor under Darden weighs “slightly in\\nfavor of employee status” primarily on the basis that American Family “sought out potential\\nagents who were untrained.” In doing so, the district court erred.\\n\\n This circuit has previously held that the skill required of insurance agents weighs in favor\\nof independent-contractor status because “the sale of insurance is a highly specialized field” that\\nrequires “considerable training, education, and skill.” Weary, 377 F.3d at 526–27 (internal\\nquotations omitted). The skill inquiry centers on whether the skill is an independent discipline\\nthat “could be” learned elsewhere. Id. at 532 (Clay, J., dissenting). Though American Family\\npreferred hiring untrained, and often unlicensed, agents, the underlying discipline of selling\\ninsurance remains the same regardless of American Family’s hiring preferences. Ibid.\\n(“[B]ecause the skill of selling insurance is a general one, the majority may be correct in its\\nconclusion that this factor favors independent contractor status.”). The district court therefore\\nmisapplied the legal standard to the facts; the correct application would have weighed this factor\\nin favor of independent contractor status, as this circuit has done previously.\\n\\n Darden’s eighth factor examines “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants.”\\nDarden, 503 U.S. at 323–24. The court mistakenly weighed this factor as “neutral” after\\nconcluding that the agents “had primary authority to hire their own staff” and were solely\\nresponsible for all “staff compensation matters.”\\n\\n The district court found, as a factual matter, that American Family agents were\\nresponsible for paying their own staff, determining and paying for any benefits and taxes\\nassociated with that staff, and deciding whether to classify their staff as employees or\\nindependent contractors. While American Family provided “pre-approved” candidates, whom\\nthe agents could select as their staff, it did not require the agents to hire these pre-screened\\ncandidates. Agents also had sole discretion in staff-compensation matters and the sole\\nresponsibility to withhold and remit taxes to the federal government as the employers of their\\nstaff.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n On the other hand, American Family imposed qualifications on appointed agency staff,\\nincluding state licensure, clean driving records, education levels, credit history, and minimum\\nincome-to-debt ratios. American Family did not provide computer access to any non-approved\\nappointed agency staff and required agency staff to agree to a lifetime non-solicitation\\nagreement. American Family had the right to fire any agency staff, appointed or non-appointed,\\nwho did not live up to the American Family Code of Conduct, and it retained the right, although\\nrarely exercised, to fire agency staff for any reason. American Family managers were also\\nevaluated on the number of staff employed by their agents and would sometimes offer monetary\\nsubsidies to agents to hire more staff.\\n\\n Considering all of these facts, the district court determined that “[a]lthough American\\nFamily retained some right to override an agent’s hiring and firing decision, on balance, agents\\nhad primary authority over hiring and paying their assistants.” Yet the court inexplicably\\nconcluded from that finding that the factor was “neutral.” This conclusion was contrary to\\nDarden’s language. If the hired party has the “primary authority over hiring and paying its own\\nassistants,” the Darden factor regarding “the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants”\\nshould weigh in favor of independent-contractor status. Janette, 298 F. App’x at 475–76\\n(Because plaintiff “could have hired assistants, at her expense,” the factor favored independent-\\ncontractor status.). Any other conclusion conflicts with Darden’s clear language.\\n\\n B\\n\\n Further, given our determination regarding the existence of each of the Darden factors,5\\nthe district court also erred by not properly weighing those factors that are particularly significant\\nin the legal context of ERISA eligibility. Darden asks us to look at the “hiring party’s right to\\ncontrol the manner and means by which the product is accomplished,” which we have\\ndetermined to be “a broad consideration that is embodied in many of the specific factors\\narticulated” there. Weary, 377 F.3d at 525. But “the relative weight given each [Darden] factor\\nmay differ depending upon the legal context of the determination.” Ware, 67 F.3d at 578. In\\nparticular, “control and supervision is less important in an ERISA context, where a court is\\n\\n 5That is to say, whether each Darden factor favors independent-contractor or employee status.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\ndetermining whether an employer has assumed responsibility for a person’s pension status.”\\nIbid. Because ERISA cases focus on the financial benefits that a company should have provided,\\nthe financial structure of the company-agent relationship guides the inquiry. Here, the Darden\\nfactors that most pertain to that financial structure favor independent-contractor status and,\\naccordingly, carry more weight in the ERISA context.\\n\\n In this case, the district court found that the insurance agents invested heavily in their\\noffices and instrumentalities, paid rent and worked out of their own offices, earned commissions\\non sales, were not eligible for employment benefits, and paid taxes as independent contractors.\\nAccordingly, the court weighed factors two (the source of the instrumentalities and tools), three\\n(the location of the work), seven (method of payment), eleven (provision of employee benefits),\\nand twelve (tax treatment) in favor of independent-contractor status.6 We have now corrected\\nthe district court’s weighing of factors one (the skill required) and eight (the hired party’s role in\\nhiring and paying assistants) to favor independent-contractor status, as well. Because this\\ninquiry exists in the legal context of ERISA benefits, this collection of factors—particularly the\\nones relating to the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the method of payment, the\\nprovision of employee benefits, and the agents’ tax treatment—is especially important in\\ndetermining the parties’ financial structure. Accordingly, these factors should have carried\\ngreater weight in the district court’s final analysis. Had the court properly weighed those factors\\nin accordance with their significance, it would have determined that the entire mix of Darden\\nfactors favored independent-contractor status.\\n\\n As further evidence of the financial structure of the parties’ relationship, the lower court\\nshould have also given greater weight to the parties’ express agreement. In determining the\\nparties’ relationship in the Darden context, we have several times “look[ed] to any express\\nagreement between the parties as to their status as it is the best evidence of their intent” and\\nplaced great weight on that agreement. Janette, 298 F. App’x. at 471; Weary, 377 F.3d at 525\\n(noting that the existence of a contract characterizing Weary as an independent contractor is\\n\\n\\n 6The district court weighed the “method of payment” factor in favor of independent-contractor status for\\nagents “once they began selling policies out of their own office.” During the agents’ “training period,” the court\\nweighed the factor in favor of employee status.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 14\\n\\n\\n“certainly relevant to the inquiry” and shows “how the parties themselves viewed the nature of\\ntheir working relationship”). Our sister circuits have adopted this approach, as well. See Brown\\nv. J. Kaz., Inc., 581 F.3d 175, 181 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that an independent-contractor\\nagreement “is strong evidence” of independent-contractor status); Schwieger v. Farm Bureau\\nIns. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir. 2000) (same). A written contract shows “how the\\nparties themselves viewed the nature of their working relationship” and therefore carries great—\\nbut not dispositive—weight in determining an independent-contractor relationship. Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 525.\\n\\n The Agent Agreement governing the parties’ business relationship here indicates that\\nthey structured their relationship so that the agents should be treated as independent contractors.\\nEach Agreement contained a paragraph either identical to or substantively similar to the\\nfollowing:\\n\\n It is the intent of the parties hereto that you are not an employee of the Company\\n for any purpose, but are an independent contractor for all purposes, including\\n federal taxation with full control of your activities and the right to exercise\\n independent judgment as to time, place and manner of soliciting insurance,\\n servicing policyholders and otherwise carrying out the provisions of this\\n agreement. As an independent contractor you are responsible for your self-\\n employment taxes and are not eligible for various employee benefits such as\\n Workers and Unemployment Compensation.\\n\\nThe Agreement also provides that:\\n\\n Rates, rules, regulations and all provisions contained in the Company’s Agent’s\\n Manuals and all changes to them shall be binding upon you. If any inconsistency\\n or ambiguity exists between this agreement and such rate, rule, regulation,\\n provision or other statement or statements, whether written or oral, this agreement\\n shall control.\\n\\n(emphasis added). The Agency Agreement therefore states in wholly unambiguous terms that\\nagents are independent contractors who retain “full control” over several facets of their business.\\n\\n The district court correctly recognized that the agreement favored independent-contractor\\nstatus. But the court apparently did not weigh this important component when reaching its\\nconclusion regarding independent-contractor status. Had the lower court given this express\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 15\\n\\n\\nagreement proper consideration, it would have further swung the balance in favor of\\nindependent-contractor status.\\n\\n IV\\n\\n This court has time and again declared insurance agents to have independent-contractor\\nstatus—and appellees have presented no case in which we have not done so. See, e.g., Weary,\\n377 F.3d at 524; Wolcott v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 884 F.2d 245, 251 (6th Cir. 1989). Some\\nof our sister circuits have in fact already found American Family agents to be independent\\ncontractors in other contexts. Wortham v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 385 F.3d 1139, 1140–41 (8th\\nCir. 2004); Moore v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 90-3107, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 13574, *3\\n(7th Cir. June 25, 1991). The plaintiffs have not shown that the facts here are so radically\\ndifferent from these cases to justify what would be a significant departure from these rulings,\\nespecially in the “legal context” of ERISA eligibility where we have held that “control and\\nsupervision is less important” than the financial structure of the parties’ relationship. Ware, 67\\nF.3d at 578. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance\\nwith this holding.\\n\\n No. 17-4125 Jammal, et al. v. Am. Family Ins. Co., et al. Page 16\\n\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n DISSENT\\n _________________\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":162,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4585886,"string":"4,585,886"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Frieda AARON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Maureen O'CONNOR and Mark R. Schweikert, in Their Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Frieda Aaron v. Maureen O'Connor"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-30"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-3452"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Merritt, Guy, Moore\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0013p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n FRIEDA AARON, et al., ┐\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-3452\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n MAUREEN O’CONNOR and MARK R. SCHWEIKERT, in │\\n their official capacities, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.\\n No. 1:17-cv-00846—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 30, 2019\\n\\n Before: MERRITT, GUY, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Robert A. Winter, Jr., Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, for Appellants. Nicole M.\\nKoppitch, Steven T. Voigt, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio,\\nfor Appellee O’Connor. Lawrence E. Barbiere, Katherine L. Barbiere, SCHROEDER,\\nMAUNDRELL, BARBIERE & POWERS, Mason, Ohio, for Appellee Schweikert.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. A large group of plaintiffs brought medical\\nmalpractice claims in Ohio state court against a doctor who operated on them and against several\\nhospitals where he worked. The plaintiffs allege that the judge presiding over their case, Judge\\nMark R. Schweikert, and Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court were\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nbiased against their claims. In accordance with Ohio law, they filed affidavits of disqualification\\nagainst Judge Schweikert, and requested that Chief Justice O’Connor recuse herself from\\ndeciding Judge Schweikert’s disqualification. Soon thereafter, they filed the instant suit in the\\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asking that the court enjoin Chief\\nJustice O’Connor from ruling on the affidavit of disqualification pertaining to Judge Schweikert\\nand enjoin Judge Schweikert from taking any action in their cases before the affidavit of\\ndisqualification was ruled upon. Because the Younger abstention doctrine applies to this\\nsituation, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision to abstain from hearing the plaintiffs’ claims\\nand dismiss the case. However, we REMAND so that the district court can amend its order to\\ndismiss the case without prejudice.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n The plaintiffs, former patients who underwent back surgery with Dr. Abubakar Atiq\\nDurrani, M.D., brought suit in Ohio state courts against Durrani and several hospitals in the\\nCincinnati area seeking tort damages for medical malpractice. R. 1 (Compl. at 7) (Page ID #7).\\nNumerous cases, involving over 500 plaintiffs, have been litigated for over five years in state\\ncourts before several judges. Id. at 1, 7, 20–25 (Page ID #1, 7, 20–25). The plaintiffs allege that\\nJustice Maureen O’Connor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, eventually\\nappointed Judge Mark R. Schweikert, a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge, to\\noversee the Durrani cases. Appellants Br. at 4; R. 1 (Compl. at 15, 35) (Page ID #15, 35). The\\nplaintiffs’ complaint expresses their disagreement with several of Judge Schweikert’s decisions\\nregarding the litigation and alleges that Chief Justice O’Connor “has informed and does inform\\nJudge Mark Schweikert how to rule on issues before him and he has followed her orders.” Id. at\\n25 (Page ID #25). Due to their perception that Judge Schweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor\\nwere biased against them and that that bias was impacting the litigation, on December 15, 2017,\\nthe plaintiffs’ counsel filed an “Affidavit of Disqualification of Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor\\nand Judge Mark Schweikert” with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio. R. 1-1 (Aff. of\\nDisqualification) (Page ID #55). The affidavit alleged that Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge\\nSchweikert have “a bias and a prejudice against Plaintiffs and their claims.” Id. (Page ID #56).\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03 provides for the disqualification of the judge assigned to a\\nstate-court case in certain circumstances. “If a judge of the court of common pleas . . . allegedly\\nis related to or has a bias or prejudice for or against a party to a proceeding pending before the\\ncourt . . . the party’s counsel may file an affidavit of disqualification with the clerk of the\\nsupreme court.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(A). The affidavit must include “specific\\nallegations on which the claim of interest, bias, prejudice, or disqualification is based and the\\nfacts to support each of those allegations.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(B)(1). Filing of the\\naffidavit “deprives the judge against whom the affidavit was filed of any authority to preside in\\nthe proceeding until the chief justice of the supreme court, or a justice of the supreme court\\ndesignated by the chief justice, rules on the affidavit.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(D)(1).\\n\\n The plaintiffs’ affidavit of disqualification also argued that Chief Justice O’Connor\\nshould not be permitted to decide Judge Schweikert’s disqualification because of the plaintiffs’\\nallegation that she herself is biased against them. Ohio Supreme Court Rule of Practice § 4.04\\nprovides for the disqualification and recusal of state supreme court justices in certain\\ncircumstances.1 Section 4.04(B)(1) provides that “[a] party to a case pending before the [Ohio]\\nSupreme Court . . . may request the recusal of a justice by filing a request with the Clerk of the\\n[Ohio] Supreme Court.” The request must be supported by an affidavit explaining why the\\nrecusal is requested and including factual support. Ohio S. Ct. Prac. R. § 4.04(B)(1). Then,\\n“[t]he justice named in the request shall submit a written response to the Clerk indicating\\nwhether the justice will recuse from the case.” The Clerk shall provide the parties with the\\nresponse. Ohio S. Ct. Prac. R. § 4.04(C).\\n\\n On December 18, 2017, three days after filing their affidavit with the Clerk of the\\nSupreme Court of Ohio, the plaintiffs filed suit against Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge\\nSchweikert in federal district court alleging due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.\\nThey sought an injunction preventing Chief Justice O’Connor from ruling on their earlier-filed\\n\\n\\n 1The district court noted that it was “not convinced Plaintiffs have properly sought the recusal of Chief\\nJustice O’Connor” because the plaintiffs had “filed a combined Affidavit of Disqualification, seeking to disqualify\\nJudge Schweikert and asking a justice other than Chief Justice O’Connor to rule on it. In support, Plaintiffs cite S.\\nCt. Prac. R. 14.6. There is, however, no Rule 14.6.” R. 34 (Op. and Order at 10 n.6) (Page ID #1764). On appeal,\\nthe plaintiffs have cited the relevant provision of the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\naffidavit of disqualification and preventing Judge Schweikert “from taking any action on their\\ncases” before the affidavit of disqualification is ruled upon. R. 1 (Compl. at 2) (Page ID #2). It\\nappears that the injunction that the plaintiffs sought against Judge Schweikert merely asked the\\nfederal district court to enjoin him from violating Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03(D)(1), which\\ndeprived him of authority to continue presiding over the state case until the affidavit of\\ndisqualification was ruled upon. The Supreme Court of Ohio appears to have sought to comply\\nwith Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03(D)(1) by issuing its December 20, 2017 letter to Judge\\nSchweikert informing him of the affidavit that had been filed seeking his disqualification and\\ninstructing that “no further judicial rulings should be made by [him] until the affidavit has been\\nruled on by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor or a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court designated\\nby the chief justice . . . .” R. 29-1 (Page ID #1554).\\n\\n On December 27, 2017, the district court informed the parties that it intended to rule on\\nthe preliminary issue of abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), before\\naddressing the merits of the complaint. R. 34 (Op. and Order) (Page ID #1755). Accordingly,\\nthe parties briefed the court on whether Younger abstention applies and the court heard oral\\narguments on the issue. Id. On January 26, 2018, the district court held that Younger abstention\\napplied and dismissed the federal case with prejudice. Id. at 10 (Page ID #1764). The plaintiffs\\nmoved to alter or amend the judgment of the district court. R. 36 (Pl. Mot. to Alter or Amend)\\n(Page ID #1766). The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend its judgment\\non April 13, 2018. R. 47 (Order) (Page ID #2090). Plaintiffs then timely filed their notice of\\nappeal. R. 48 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID #2093).\\n\\n During the pendency of their federal suit, the plaintiffs filed in state court additional\\naffidavits of disqualification against Judge Schweikert. O’Connor Br. at 5. After the district\\ncourt’s original dismissal of the case, Chief Justice O’Connor denied the plaintiffs’ affidavits of\\ndisqualification on February 5, 2018. Schweikert Br. at 3. The plaintiffs then filed additional\\naffidavits seeking the disqualification of Judge Schweikert. Schweikert Br. at 3. On February\\n26, 2018, Chief Justice O’Connor denied those additional affidavits of disqualification. Id.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\nA. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo the district court’s judgment abstaining from hearing a case under the\\nYounger doctrine. Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky, 860 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\nB. Mootness\\n\\n Defendant Schweikert argues that the plaintiffs’ claims are moot because “[s]ince the\\nfiling of their Motion for injunctive relief, Chief Justice O’Connor has ruled upon, and\\nsummarily dismissed, seventeen Affidavits of Disqualification filed by Plaintiffs’ [sic] against\\nJudge Schweikert and Judge Schweikert is currently presiding over the underlying medical\\nmalpractice actions involving the Plaintiffs.” Schweikert Br. at 20. We address mootness before\\nwe address Younger abstention because mootness is a jurisdictional issue. See Rettig v. Kent\\nCity Sch. Dist., 788 F.2d 328, 330 (6th Cir. 1986). If a case is moot, the “case or controversy”\\nrequirement of Article III of the Constitution is not satisfied and we do not have jurisdiction to\\nhear the case. Id. The abstention doctrines, however, assume jurisdiction but decline to exercise\\nit in limited circumstances. See, e.g., Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013).\\n\\n “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a\\nlegally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Cty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631\\n(1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). The plaintiffs argue that the\\ncase should not be considered moot because it falls under an exception that allows for judicial\\nreview when “the challenged activity is capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Reply Br. at\\n7–9 (quoting Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368, 371 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S.\\n1178 (2006)). “This exception applies when ‘(1) the challenged action was in its duration too\\nshort to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable\\nexpectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’”\\nLawrence, 430 F.3d at 371 (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)). Because\\nthe plaintiffs assert that this exception to the normal mootness rule applies, they bear the burden\\nof demonstrating that both criteria are met. See id.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n The plaintiffs have carried their burden and satisfied both prongs. First, the challenged\\naction was completed nearly immediately after the district court entered judgment, and before the\\ncase could reach the court of appeals. The district court decided to abstain from hearing the case\\non January 26, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their motion to alter judgment on February 5, 2018.\\nChief Justice O’Connor denied the affidavits of disqualification on the same day, ruling on them\\nherself (rather than deferring to another justice) and concluding that Judge Schweikert could\\ncontinue to preside over the litigation. Therefore, her challenged action (failing to recuse herself\\nfrom ruling on the affidavits for Judge Schweikert’s disqualification) had already been\\ncompleted before its validity could be fully litigated on appeal in this court. See Speer v. City of\\nOregon, 847 F.2d 310, 311 (6th Cir. 1988) (finding the first prong satisfied where the plaintiff\\nsought an injunction requiring her name to be placed on an electoral ballot, but the election had\\nalready passed by the time the court of appeals heard her claim). The second prong is satisfied if\\n“the controversy [is] capable of repetition and not . . . whether the claimant ha[s] demonstrated\\nthat a recurrence of the dispute [is] more probable than not.” Lawrence, 430 F.3d at 371\\n(quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 319 n.6 (1988)) (emphasis in original). There is a\\nreasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will file another affidavit of disqualification for Judge\\nSchweikert, request the recusal of Chief Justice O’Connor in ruling on it, and still have the Ohio\\nChief Justice determine the merit of the affidavit of disqualification. The plaintiffs have already\\nfiled additional affidavits of disqualification and the Ohio Chief Justice has denied them.\\nSchweikert Br. at 3. The state litigation is ongoing, and the situation is certainly capable of\\nrepeating itself.\\n\\nC. Younger Analysis\\n\\n We generally “are obliged to decide cases within the scope of federal jurisdiction.”\\nSprint, 571 U.S. at 72. However, in certain circumstances, allowing a federal suit to proceed\\nthreatens “undue interference with state proceedings,” and the proper course is for the federal\\ncourt to abstain from entertaining the action. Id.; see Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 10\\n(1987) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971)). The Younger breed of abstention\\nrequires abstention in three different circumstances outlined in New Orleans Public Service, Inc.\\nv. Council of New Orleans (“NOPSI”), 491 U.S. 350 (1989). The Supreme Court has noted that\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nthese three categories are the “exception[]” rather than the rule. Sprint, 571 U.S. at 73 (quoting\\nNOPSI, 491 U.S. at 367). First, we may abstain under Younger “when there is an ongoing state\\ncriminal prosecution.” Doe, 860 F.3d at 369. Second, we may abstain when there is a civil\\nenforcement proceeding that is “akin to [a] criminal prosecution[].” Sprint, 571 U.S. at 72.\\nThird, we may abstain when there is a “civil proceeding[] involving certain orders that are\\nuniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” NOPSI,\\n491 U.S. at 368.\\n\\n The prototypical examples of situations falling within this third category are Juidice v.\\nVail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977), and Pennzoil. In Juidice, a state-court judgment debtor filed suit in\\nfederal court against a state-court justice asking the federal court to enjoin the state-court justice\\nfrom enforcing the state contempt statute against him. 430 U.S. at 328–30. The Supreme Court\\nconcluded that Younger abstention applied, deeming the “vital consideration” to be “the notion\\nof ‘comity,’ that is, a proper respect for state functions . . . .” Id. at 334 (quoting Huffman v.\\nPursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 601 (1975)) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Federal\\nabstention was proper, avoiding intrusion into “the contempt process, through which [the state]\\nvindicates the regular operation of its judicial system.” Id. at 335. In Pennzoil, Texaco filed a\\nsuit in federal court seeking to enjoin Pennzoil from enforcing a jury verdict rendered against\\nTexaco by a Texas state court. 481 U.S. at 6. The Supreme Court held that abstention under\\nYounger was appropriate there as well, consistent with its repeated recognition “that the States\\nhave important interests in administering certain aspects of their judicial systems.” Id. at 12–13.\\nThe Court determined that the Texas state court’s ability to enforce its own jury verdicts was\\nnecessary not only “to vindicate and preserve the private interests of competing litigants,” but\\nalso to “stand[] in aid of the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are\\nnot rendered nugatory.” Id. at 13 (quoting Juidice, 430 U.S. at 336 n.12).\\n\\n We conclude that the ability of the courts of the State of Ohio to determine when recusal\\nof a judge or justice is appropriate and to administer the recusal decision process in accordance\\nwith state law operates “uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their\\njudicial functions.” NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 368. In previous decisions, we have held that Younger\\nabstention applies under the third NOPSI category where plaintiffs sought federal injunctions\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nrequiring the recusal of state-court judges. Shafizadeh v. Bowles, 476 F. App’x 71, 72–73 (6th\\nCir. 2012) (abstaining under Younger where a plaintiff sought “an injunction to direct the judge\\nwho presided over [his] divorce to remove himself from the case,” alleging that the judge was\\nbiased against him); Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411, 419 (6th Cir. 2005) (concluding that\\nYounger demanded abstention where plaintiffs sought a federal-court declaration that the failure\\nof four justices of the Michigan Supreme Court to recuse themselves from an ongoing state-court\\ncases violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights); Bodell v. McDonald, 4 F. App’x 276, 279 (6th\\nCir. 2001) (concluding that Younger abstention applied where a plaintiff “asked the district court\\nto enter an order preventing [a certain state judge] from presiding over any cases involving [the\\nplaintiff]”); see also Strand v. Dawson, 468 F. App’x 910, 911 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming\\ndistrict court’s dismissal on Younger grounds of suit against state court judge who “refused to\\nrecuse himself in a pending state court eviction action involving Plaintiffs”); Thomas v. Piccione,\\nNo. 13-425, 2014 WL 1653066, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2014) (concluding that abstention\\nunder Younger was appropriate, reasoning that “[i]n asking [the federal district court] to order\\nthe recusal of [the state court judge], plaintiff indirectly challenges Pennsylvania courts’ process\\nfor judicial recusals”).\\n\\n The plaintiffs here argue for a narrow construction of the third NOPSI category, positing\\nthat because “[h]ere there was no order or judgment of an Ohio court that will be implicated by\\nthis Court’s exercise of jurisdiction,” Younger abstention cannot apply. Appellants Br. at 13, 16.\\nDefendants counter that the plaintiffs propose an overly narrow reading of the third category that\\ncannot be correct due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennzoil. O’Connor Br. at 16. The\\ndefendants offer the truer interpretation of Younger precedent.\\n\\n In Pennzoil, Texaco filed its federal suit before the Texas court entered judgment for\\nPennzoil, asking the federal court “to enjoin Pennzoil from taking any action to enforce the\\njudgment” because of the alleged unconstitutionality of Texas’s “judgment enforcement\\nprocedures.” 481 U.S. at 6 & n.5. Texaco’s federal suit sought to prevent the state court from\\ntaking a specific legal action, not merely from enforcing a preexisting order. The same is true of\\nthe plaintiffs’ suit here. In articulating the third NOPSI category, the Supreme Court has cited\\nPennzoil as an illustrative example, implicitly validating Younger abstention where a state-\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\ncourt’s order had not yet issued. See Sprint, 571 U.S. at 79 (citing Pennzoil as involving\\nproceedings that “touch[ed] on a state court’s ability to perform its judicial function”).\\nTherefore, we do not read the third category so narrowly as to preclude Younger abstention when\\nthe state court has not yet issued an order. See also Chalupowski v. Berry, 151 F. App’x 1, 2 (1st\\nCir. 2005) (affirming the district court’s dismissal on Younger grounds where the “Appellants\\nasked the federal court to order the defendant, a state court appellate judge before whom a\\nmotion for contempt was then the only pending matter, to recuse herself ‘from further hearing in\\nthis matter’”) (emphasis added).\\n\\n Sprint dictates that once we have determined that a case falls into a NOPSI category in\\nwhich Younger abstention may be proper, we next analyze the case “using a three-factor test laid\\nout in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982).”\\nDoe, 860 F.3d at 369 (citing Sprint, 571 U.S. at 81). If “(1) state proceedings are currently\\npending; (2) the proceedings involve an important state interest; and (3) the state proceedings\\nwill provide the federal plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional claims,”\\nwe may abstain from hearing the federal claim. Id.; see also Habich v. City of Dearborn,\\n331 F.3d 524, 530 (6th Cir. 2003).\\n\\n Plaintiffs admit that the first two Middlesex factors are satisfied in this case. Appellants\\nBr. at 21. However, they argue that the Ohio state proceedings would not give them an adequate\\nopportunity to raise their constitutional arguments. “[T]he burden on this point rests on the\\nfederal plaintiff to show ‘that the state procedural law barred presentation of its claims.’”\\nPennzoil, 481 U.S. at 14 (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 432 (1979)) (brackets omitted).\\nThe plaintiffs take issue with the district court’s assertion that they might seek a writ of certiorari\\nto the United States Supreme Court should Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge Schweikert refuse\\nto step aside and should the plaintiffs believe that these adjudicators’ conduct affected their\\nconstitutional rights. They argue that certiorari is a federal, rather than state, remedy and\\ntherefore that the third Middlesex factor would not be satisfied if a writ of certiorari from the\\nUnited States Supreme Court is the only available remedy left. Appellants Br. at 23.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\n We conclude that the state proceedings provide the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to\\nraise their constitutional arguments.2 First, the plaintiffs made the same constitutional arguments\\nregarding their due process rights to an unbiased adjudication in their affidavit of disqualification\\nand motion to disqualify the Ohio Chief Justice as they have in this federal case. Compare R. 1-\\n1 (Affidavit of Disqualification at 1–25) (Page ID #56–80), with R. 1 (Compl. at 5–37) (Page ID\\n#5–37); Gilbert, 401 F.3d at 419 (“Plaintiffs had an adequate opportunity to raise their\\nconstitutional challenge, as evidenced by the fact that their lengthy brief in support of their\\nmotion to recuse contained the same arguments and proofs as presented in their complaint filed\\nin federal court.”). Second, the plaintiffs may appeal any potential adverse final decision of the\\nstate trial court, alleging that Judge Schweikert’s and Chief Justice O’Connor’s bias had tainted\\nthe proceedings.3 The fact that this approach requires the use of the appellate process (including\\na potential petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court) does not render it\\ninadequate. See Shafizadeh, 476 F. App’x at 73 (concluding that there was “no dispute that the\\nstate appellate process gave [the plaintiff] an adequate opportunity to raise his grievances\\nconcerning [the judge presiding over his divorce in state court]”); see also Caperton v. A.T.\\nMassey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (finding that the Due Process Clause required recusal of a\\njustice on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and reversing and remanding the case).\\n\\n There are several circumstances under which, although Younger abstention would\\nnormally be appropriate, the federal court should not abstain from hearing a case. The first is\\nwhere “the state proceeding is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith.”\\n\\n 2The plaintiffs discuss Yohn v. Love, 887 F. Supp. 773 (E.D. Pa. 1995), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 76\\nF.3d 508 (3d Cir. 1996), and from it argue that their “Due Process rights were violated” by alleged (but\\nunsubstantiated) “telephone conversations between the Chief Justice and the trial judge,” leaving them with “no\\nopportunity to have a fair and impartial hearing on the issues.” Appellants Br. at 29–30. However, this out-of-\\ncircuit case concerned a petitioner seeking habeas relief, alleging improper judicial interference in his criminal trial\\nand subsequent appeals. The facts of Yohn and the case at bar diverge beyond these differences in jurisdiction and\\nposture. As the district court noted in its order denying the plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend, Yohn involved a\\nChief Justice’s admitted and documented meddling in the trial court’s decision regarding a specific evidentiary\\nquestion. R. 47 (Order at 2) (Page ID #2091) (citing Yohn, 887 F. Supp. at 782). In contrast, the plaintiffs offer\\nnothing more than vague and unsubstantiated allegations of alleged improper communications between Judge\\nSchweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor.\\n 3The plaintiffs implicitly acknowledge the availability of the state appellate system to challenge any\\ndeterminations that they allege to be biased. R. 1 (Compl. at 20) (Page ID #20) (“Appealing biased and clearly\\nwrong rulings is not a fair remedy to Plaintiffs.”). They thus apparently challenge the fairness of the remedy.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nHuffman, 420 U.S. at 611. The second is where “the challenged statute is flagrantly and patently\\nviolative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Moore, 442 U.S. at 424 (quoting Huffman, 420\\nU.S. at 611). And third, the federal court should not abstain where there is “an extraordinarily\\npressing need for immediate federal equitable relief.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 125\\n(1975).\\n\\n In their opening brief, the plaintiffs do not expressly argue that their case falls under one\\nof these three exceptions to Younger abstention. However, the defendants construe the plaintiffs’\\nallegations that Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge Schweikert were biased as an implicit\\ncontention that the third exception applies. O’Connor Br. at 20; Schweikert Br. at 16. The\\nplaintiffs explicitly adopt this argument in their reply brief. Reply Br. at 6. However, we find\\nthis tactic insufficient given that the plaintiffs never argued in the district court that their case fell\\nwithin the third Younger exception.4 Instead, the plaintiffs cast their arguments that Judge\\nSchweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor were biased as supporting the conclusion that the third\\nMiddlesex factor was not met, not that the third exception to Younger applied.5 See, e.g., R. 19\\n(Pl. Mem. Addressing the Non-Applicability of the Younger Abstention Doctrine at 5) (Page ID\\n#1427); R. 36-1 (Pl. Mem. in Supp. of Pl. Mot. to Alter or Amend at 3) (Page ID #1775). Given\\nthe lack of argument regarding the third exception to Younger abstention, the district court did\\nnot address its applicability in its opinion. See R. 34 (Op. and Order) (Page ID #1755). “It is\\nwell-settled that issues not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal\\nare not properly before this Court.” Kusens v. Pascal Co., 448 F.3d 349, 368 (6th Cir. 2006).\\nWe conclude that the plaintiffs forfeited their argument regarding the third exception to Younger\\nby failing to raise it in the court below.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4The only references to the Younger abstention exceptions in the court below were made by Chief Justice\\nO’Connor, who, in the same way as she did in the appellate briefing, defended against an argument about the third\\nexception that was not actually present in the plaintiffs’ earlier briefing. See R. 12 (O’Connor Mem. in Opp. to Pl.\\nAm. Mot. for TRO at 8) (Page ID #722); R. 27 (O’Connor Suppl. Br. on Younger Abstention at 7) (Page ID #1534)\\n(“Plaintiffs seem to argue that the third exception to Younger applies here based on alleged bias.”).\\n 5In their Reply Memorandum concerning Younger abstention, the plaintiffs quote the “flagrant\\nunconstitutionality” language of the second Younger exception but offer no analysis to support a claim that their\\ncase falls under it. R. 28 (Pl. Reply Mem. Further Addressing the Non-Applicability of the Younger Abstention\\nDoctrine at 6) (Page ID #1549) (discussing “The Third Middlesex Factor And Flagrant Unconstitutionality”).\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n The plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Sprint “reduced the scope\\nof the Younger abstention doctrine in federal courts” and therefore that this case does not fall\\nwithin its newly narrowed reach. Appellants Br. at 8. Although we agree that Sprint firmly\\ndelineates and limits the types of cases that may qualify for Younger abstention, we disagree that\\nthe present case falls outside the boundary Sprint set. Sprint synthesizes the Younger doctrine\\nand highlights the interaction between the NOPSI categories and the Middlesex factors. Sprint,\\n571 U.S. at 81. In Sprint, the Court articulates the firm requirement that a case fall within one of\\nthe three previously established NOPSI categories to qualify for Younger abstention. Id. at 82\\n(clarifying that “Younger extends to the three ‘exceptional circumstances’ identified in NOPSI,\\nbut no further”). The Court further emphasizes that “[t]he three Middlesex conditions . . . [are]\\nnot dispositive; they [are] instead, additional factors appropriately considered by the federal\\ncourt before invoking Younger.” Id. at 81. The Sprint Court determined that the district court\\nand Eighth Circuit had abstained inappropriately because the case before them did not fall within\\none of the NOPSI categories and the lower courts had relied too heavily on the factors discussed\\nin Middlesex. Id. at 79–81. We have determined that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the third\\nNOPSI category and additionally satisfy the Middlesex factors. Accordingly, we have complied\\nwith the Younger doctrine as limited by Sprint.\\n\\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if Younger abstention applies, the district court\\nerred by dismissing their claim with prejudice. Appellants Br. at 34. Here, the plaintiffs are\\ncorrect. “A dismissal based on Younger is without prejudice.” Chalupowski, 151 F. App’x, at 2\\n(citing Maymo-Melendez v. Alvarez-Ramirez, 364 F.3d 27, 32 n.4 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,\\n543 U.S. 872 (2004)). This is because “[a] dismissal with prejudice ordinarily operates as an\\nadjudication on the merits,” which is inconsistent with the court’s Younger-based decision to\\nabstain from hearing the case at all. Caldwell v. Camp, 594 F.2d 705, 708 (8th Cir. 1979).\\nNeither we nor the district court have reached the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, our\\nanalysis focuses on the inappropriateness of our exercise of jurisdiction in this case based on the\\nsubstance of the plaintiffs’ claims and our relationship to the Ohio state courts. This federal-\\ncourt dismissal therefore does not operate to bar the plaintiffs from again bringing the same\\nclaims. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001) (“The primary\\nmeaning of ‘dismissal without prejudice,’ we think, is dismissal without barring the plaintiff\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nfrom returning later, to the same court, with the same underlying claim. That will also ordinarily\\n(though not always) have the consequence of not barring the claim from other courts . . . .”);\\nBragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ., 570 F.3d 775, 776 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting that preclusion of a suit\\nbased on res judicata requires “a final decision on the merits”) (citation omitted). Accordingly,\\nwe instruct the district court to modify its judgment to a dismissal without prejudice. See\\nChalupowski, 151 F. App’x at 2.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the district court correctly determined\\nthat the Younger abstention doctrine permitted its abstention from entertaining the plaintiffs’\\nclaims. We therefore AFFIRM. However, we REMAND so that the district court can amend\\nits order to a dismissal without prejudice.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4363139/\", \"author_raw\": \"KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"MERRITT"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"GUY"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MOORE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585886/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Frieda AARON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Maureen O'CONNOR and Mark R. Schweikert, in Their Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-30\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0013p.06\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n\n FRIEDA AARON, et al., ┐\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\n │\n > No. 18-3452\n v. │\n │\n │\n MAUREEN O’CONNOR and MARK R. SCHWEIKERT, in │\n their official capacities, │\n Defendants-Appellees. │\n ┘\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.\n No. 1:17-cv-00846—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.\n\n Decided and Filed: January 30, 2019\n\n Before: MERRITT, GUY, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.\n\n _________________\n\n COUNSEL\n\nON BRIEF: Robert A. Winter, Jr., Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, for Appellants. Nicole M.\nKoppitch, Steven T. Voigt, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio,\nfor Appellee O’Connor. Lawrence E. Barbiere, Katherine L. Barbiere, SCHROEDER,\nMAUNDRELL, BARBIERE & POWERS, Mason, Ohio, for Appellee Schweikert.\n _________________\n\n OPINION\n _________________\n\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. A large group of plaintiffs brought medical\nmalpractice claims in Ohio state court against a doctor who operated on them and against several\nhospitals where he worked. The plaintiffs allege that the judge presiding over their case, Judge\nMark R. Schweikert, and Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court were\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 2\n\n\nbiased against their claims. In accordance with Ohio law, they filed affidavits of disqualification\nagainst Judge Schweikert, and requested that Chief Justice O’Connor recuse herself from\ndeciding Judge Schweikert’s disqualification. Soon thereafter, they filed the instant suit in the\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asking that the court enjoin Chief\nJustice O’Connor from ruling on the affidavit of disqualification pertaining to Judge Schweikert\nand enjoin Judge Schweikert from taking any action in their cases before the affidavit of\ndisqualification was ruled upon. Because the Younger abstention doctrine applies to this\nsituation, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision to abstain from hearing the plaintiffs’ claims\nand dismiss the case. However, we REMAND so that the district court can amend its order to\ndismiss the case without prejudice.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n The plaintiffs, former patients who underwent back surgery with Dr. Abubakar Atiq\nDurrani, M.D., brought suit in Ohio state courts against Durrani and several hospitals in the\nCincinnati area seeking tort damages for medical malpractice. R. 1 (Compl. at 7) (Page ID #7).\nNumerous cases, involving over 500 plaintiffs, have been litigated for over five years in state\ncourts before several judges. Id. at 1, 7, 20–25 (Page ID #1, 7, 20–25). The plaintiffs allege that\nJustice Maureen O’Connor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, eventually\nappointed Judge Mark R. Schweikert, a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge, to\noversee the Durrani cases. Appellants Br. at 4; R. 1 (Compl. at 15, 35) (Page ID #15, 35). The\nplaintiffs’ complaint expresses their disagreement with several of Judge Schweikert’s decisions\nregarding the litigation and alleges that Chief Justice O’Connor “has informed and does inform\nJudge Mark Schweikert how to rule on issues before him and he has followed her orders.” Id. at\n25 (Page ID #25). Due to their perception that Judge Schweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor\nwere biased against them and that that bias was impacting the litigation, on December 15, 2017,\nthe plaintiffs’ counsel filed an “Affidavit of Disqualification of Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor\nand Judge Mark Schweikert” with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio. R. 1-1 (Aff. of\nDisqualification) (Page ID #55). The affidavit alleged that Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge\nSchweikert have “a bias and a prejudice against Plaintiffs and their claims.” Id. (Page ID #56).\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 3\n\n\n Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03 provides for the disqualification of the judge assigned to a\nstate-court case in certain circumstances. “If a judge of the court of common pleas . . . allegedly\nis related to or has a bias or prejudice for or against a party to a proceeding pending before the\ncourt . . . the party’s counsel may file an affidavit of disqualification with the clerk of the\nsupreme court.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(A). The affidavit must include “specific\nallegations on which the claim of interest, bias, prejudice, or disqualification is based and the\nfacts to support each of those allegations.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(B)(1). Filing of the\naffidavit “deprives the judge against whom the affidavit was filed of any authority to preside in\nthe proceeding until the chief justice of the supreme court, or a justice of the supreme court\ndesignated by the chief justice, rules on the affidavit.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(D)(1).\n\n The plaintiffs’ affidavit of disqualification also argued that Chief Justice O’Connor\nshould not be permitted to decide Judge Schweikert’s disqualification because of the plaintiffs’\nallegation that she herself is biased against them. Ohio Supreme Court Rule of Practice § 4.04\nprovides for the disqualification and recusal of state supreme court justices in certain\ncircumstances.1 Section 4.04(B)(1) provides that “[a] party to a case pending before the [Ohio]\nSupreme Court . . . may request the recusal of a justice by filing a request with the Clerk of the\n[Ohio] Supreme Court.” The request must be supported by an affidavit explaining why the\nrecusal is requested and including factual support. Ohio S. Ct. Prac. R. § 4.04(B)(1). Then,\n“[t]he justice named in the request shall submit a written response to the Clerk indicating\nwhether the justice will recuse from the case.” The Clerk shall provide the parties with the\nresponse. Ohio S. Ct. Prac. R. § 4.04(C).\n\n On December 18, 2017, three days after filing their affidavit with the Clerk of the\nSupreme Court of Ohio, the plaintiffs filed suit against Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge\nSchweikert in federal district court alleging due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.\nThey sought an injunction preventing Chief Justice O’Connor from ruling on their earlier-filed\n\n\n 1The district court noted that it was “not convinced Plaintiffs have properly sought the recusal of Chief\nJustice O’Connor” because the plaintiffs had “filed a combined Affidavit of Disqualification, seeking to disqualify\nJudge Schweikert and asking a justice other than Chief Justice O’Connor to rule on it. In support, Plaintiffs cite S.\nCt. Prac. R. 14.6. There is, however, no Rule 14.6.” R. 34 (Op. and Order at 10 n.6) (Page ID #1764). On appeal,\nthe plaintiffs have cited the relevant provision of the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice.\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 4\n\n\naffidavit of disqualification and preventing Judge Schweikert “from taking any action on their\ncases” before the affidavit of disqualification is ruled upon. R. 1 (Compl. at 2) (Page ID #2). It\nappears that the injunction that the plaintiffs sought against Judge Schweikert merely asked the\nfederal district court to enjoin him from violating Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03(D)(1), which\ndeprived him of authority to continue presiding over the state case until the affidavit of\ndisqualification was ruled upon. The Supreme Court of Ohio appears to have sought to comply\nwith Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03(D)(1) by issuing its December 20, 2017 letter to Judge\nSchweikert informing him of the affidavit that had been filed seeking his disqualification and\ninstructing that “no further judicial rulings should be made by [him] until the affidavit has been\nruled on by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor or a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court designated\nby the chief justice . . . .” R. 29-1 (Page ID #1554).\n\n On December 27, 2017, the district court informed the parties that it intended to rule on\nthe preliminary issue of abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), before\naddressing the merits of the complaint. R. 34 (Op. and Order) (Page ID #1755). Accordingly,\nthe parties briefed the court on whether Younger abstention applies and the court heard oral\narguments on the issue. Id. On January 26, 2018, the district court held that Younger abstention\napplied and dismissed the federal case with prejudice. Id. at 10 (Page ID #1764). The plaintiffs\nmoved to alter or amend the judgment of the district court. R. 36 (Pl. Mot. to Alter or Amend)\n(Page ID #1766). The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend its judgment\non April 13, 2018. R. 47 (Order) (Page ID #2090). Plaintiffs then timely filed their notice of\nappeal. R. 48 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID #2093).\n\n During the pendency of their federal suit, the plaintiffs filed in state court additional\naffidavits of disqualification against Judge Schweikert. O’Connor Br. at 5. After the district\ncourt’s original dismissal of the case, Chief Justice O’Connor denied the plaintiffs’ affidavits of\ndisqualification on February 5, 2018. Schweikert Br. at 3. The plaintiffs then filed additional\naffidavits seeking the disqualification of Judge Schweikert. Schweikert Br. at 3. On February\n26, 2018, Chief Justice O’Connor denied those additional affidavits of disqualification. Id.\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 5\n\n\n II. DISCUSSION\n\nA. Standard of Review\n\n We review de novo the district court’s judgment abstaining from hearing a case under the\nYounger doctrine. Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky, 860 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 2017).\n\nB. Mootness\n\n Defendant Schweikert argues that the plaintiffs’ claims are moot because “[s]ince the\nfiling of their Motion for injunctive relief, Chief Justice O’Connor has ruled upon, and\nsummarily dismissed, seventeen Affidavits of Disqualification filed by Plaintiffs’ [sic] against\nJudge Schweikert and Judge Schweikert is currently presiding over the underlying medical\nmalpractice actions involving the Plaintiffs.” Schweikert Br. at 20. We address mootness before\nwe address Younger abstention because mootness is a jurisdictional issue. See Rettig v. Kent\nCity Sch. Dist., 788 F.2d 328, 330 (6th Cir. 1986). If a case is moot, the “case or controversy”\nrequirement of Article III of the Constitution is not satisfied and we do not have jurisdiction to\nhear the case. Id. The abstention doctrines, however, assume jurisdiction but decline to exercise\nit in limited circumstances. See, e.g., Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013).\n\n “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a\nlegally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Cty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631\n(1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). The plaintiffs argue that the\ncase should not be considered moot because it falls under an exception that allows for judicial\nreview when “the challenged activity is capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Reply Br. at\n7–9 (quoting Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368, 371 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S.\n1178 (2006)). “This exception applies when ‘(1) the challenged action was in its duration too\nshort to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable\nexpectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’”\nLawrence, 430 F.3d at 371 (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)). Because\nthe plaintiffs assert that this exception to the normal mootness rule applies, they bear the burden\nof demonstrating that both criteria are met. See id.\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 6\n\n\n The plaintiffs have carried their burden and satisfied both prongs. First, the challenged\naction was completed nearly immediately after the district court entered judgment, and before the\ncase could reach the court of appeals. The district court decided to abstain from hearing the case\non January 26, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their motion to alter judgment on February 5, 2018.\nChief Justice O’Connor denied the affidavits of disqualification on the same day, ruling on them\nherself (rather than deferring to another justice) and concluding that Judge Schweikert could\ncontinue to preside over the litigation. Therefore, her challenged action (failing to recuse herself\nfrom ruling on the affidavits for Judge Schweikert’s disqualification) had already been\ncompleted before its validity could be fully litigated on appeal in this court. See Speer v. City of\nOregon, 847 F.2d 310, 311 (6th Cir. 1988) (finding the first prong satisfied where the plaintiff\nsought an injunction requiring her name to be placed on an electoral ballot, but the election had\nalready passed by the time the court of appeals heard her claim). The second prong is satisfied if\n“the controversy [is] capable of repetition and not . . . whether the claimant ha[s] demonstrated\nthat a recurrence of the dispute [is] more probable than not.” Lawrence, 430 F.3d at 371\n(quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 319 n.6 (1988)) (emphasis in original). There is a\nreasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will file another affidavit of disqualification for Judge\nSchweikert, request the recusal of Chief Justice O’Connor in ruling on it, and still have the Ohio\nChief Justice determine the merit of the affidavit of disqualification. The plaintiffs have already\nfiled additional affidavits of disqualification and the Ohio Chief Justice has denied them.\nSchweikert Br. at 3. The state litigation is ongoing, and the situation is certainly capable of\nrepeating itself.\n\nC. Younger Analysis\n\n We generally “are obliged to decide cases within the scope of federal jurisdiction.”\nSprint, 571 U.S. at 72. However, in certain circumstances, allowing a federal suit to proceed\nthreatens “undue interference with state proceedings,” and the proper course is for the federal\ncourt to abstain from entertaining the action. Id.; see Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 10\n(1987) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971)). The Younger breed of abstention\nrequires abstention in three different circumstances outlined in New Orleans Public Service, Inc.\nv. Council of New Orleans (“NOPSI”), 491 U.S. 350 (1989). The Supreme Court has noted that\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 7\n\n\nthese three categories are the “exception[]” rather than the rule. Sprint, 571 U.S. at 73 (quoting\nNOPSI, 491 U.S. at 367). First, we may abstain under Younger “when there is an ongoing state\ncriminal prosecution.” Doe, 860 F.3d at 369. Second, we may abstain when there is a civil\nenforcement proceeding that is “akin to [a] criminal prosecution[].” Sprint, 571 U.S. at 72.\nThird, we may abstain when there is a “civil proceeding[] involving certain orders that are\nuniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” NOPSI,\n491 U.S. at 368.\n\n The prototypical examples of situations falling within this third category are Juidice v.\nVail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977), and Pennzoil. In Juidice, a state-court judgment debtor filed suit in\nfederal court against a state-court justice asking the federal court to enjoin the state-court justice\nfrom enforcing the state contempt statute against him. 430 U.S. at 328–30. The Supreme Court\nconcluded that Younger abstention applied, deeming the “vital consideration” to be “the notion\nof ‘comity,’ that is, a proper respect for state functions . . . .” Id. at 334 (quoting Huffman v.\nPursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 601 (1975)) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Federal\nabstention was proper, avoiding intrusion into “the contempt process, through which [the state]\nvindicates the regular operation of its judicial system.” Id. at 335. In Pennzoil, Texaco filed a\nsuit in federal court seeking to enjoin Pennzoil from enforcing a jury verdict rendered against\nTexaco by a Texas state court. 481 U.S. at 6. The Supreme Court held that abstention under\nYounger was appropriate there as well, consistent with its repeated recognition “that the States\nhave important interests in administering certain aspects of their judicial systems.” Id. at 12–13.\nThe Court determined that the Texas state court’s ability to enforce its own jury verdicts was\nnecessary not only “to vindicate and preserve the private interests of competing litigants,” but\nalso to “stand[] in aid of the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are\nnot rendered nugatory.” Id. at 13 (quoting Juidice, 430 U.S. at 336 n.12).\n\n We conclude that the ability of the courts of the State of Ohio to determine when recusal\nof a judge or justice is appropriate and to administer the recusal decision process in accordance\nwith state law operates “uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their\njudicial functions.” NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 368. In previous decisions, we have held that Younger\nabstention applies under the third NOPSI category where plaintiffs sought federal injunctions\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 8\n\n\nrequiring the recusal of state-court judges. Shafizadeh v. Bowles, 476 F. App’x 71, 72–73 (6th\nCir. 2012) (abstaining under Younger where a plaintiff sought “an injunction to direct the judge\nwho presided over [his] divorce to remove himself from the case,” alleging that the judge was\nbiased against him); Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411, 419 (6th Cir. 2005) (concluding that\nYounger demanded abstention where plaintiffs sought a federal-court declaration that the failure\nof four justices of the Michigan Supreme Court to recuse themselves from an ongoing state-court\ncases violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights); Bodell v. McDonald, 4 F. App’x 276, 279 (6th\nCir. 2001) (concluding that Younger abstention applied where a plaintiff “asked the district court\nto enter an order preventing [a certain state judge] from presiding over any cases involving [the\nplaintiff]”); see also Strand v. Dawson, 468 F. App’x 910, 911 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming\ndistrict court’s dismissal on Younger grounds of suit against state court judge who “refused to\nrecuse himself in a pending state court eviction action involving Plaintiffs”); Thomas v. Piccione,\nNo. 13-425, 2014 WL 1653066, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2014) (concluding that abstention\nunder Younger was appropriate, reasoning that “[i]n asking [the federal district court] to order\nthe recusal of [the state court judge], plaintiff indirectly challenges Pennsylvania courts’ process\nfor judicial recusals”).\n\n The plaintiffs here argue for a narrow construction of the third NOPSI category, positing\nthat because “[h]ere there was no order or judgment of an Ohio court that will be implicated by\nthis Court’s exercise of jurisdiction,” Younger abstention cannot apply. Appellants Br. at 13, 16.\nDefendants counter that the plaintiffs propose an overly narrow reading of the third category that\ncannot be correct due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennzoil. O’Connor Br. at 16. The\ndefendants offer the truer interpretation of Younger precedent.\n\n In Pennzoil, Texaco filed its federal suit before the Texas court entered judgment for\nPennzoil, asking the federal court “to enjoin Pennzoil from taking any action to enforce the\njudgment” because of the alleged unconstitutionality of Texas’s “judgment enforcement\nprocedures.” 481 U.S. at 6 & n.5. Texaco’s federal suit sought to prevent the state court from\ntaking a specific legal action, not merely from enforcing a preexisting order. The same is true of\nthe plaintiffs’ suit here. In articulating the third NOPSI category, the Supreme Court has cited\nPennzoil as an illustrative example, implicitly validating Younger abstention where a state-\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 9\n\n\ncourt’s order had not yet issued. See Sprint, 571 U.S. at 79 (citing Pennzoil as involving\nproceedings that “touch[ed] on a state court’s ability to perform its judicial function”).\nTherefore, we do not read the third category so narrowly as to preclude Younger abstention when\nthe state court has not yet issued an order. See also Chalupowski v. Berry, 151 F. App’x 1, 2 (1st\nCir. 2005) (affirming the district court’s dismissal on Younger grounds where the “Appellants\nasked the federal court to order the defendant, a state court appellate judge before whom a\nmotion for contempt was then the only pending matter, to recuse herself ‘from further hearing in\nthis matter’”) (emphasis added).\n\n Sprint dictates that once we have determined that a case falls into a NOPSI category in\nwhich Younger abstention may be proper, we next analyze the case “using a three-factor test laid\nout in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982).”\nDoe, 860 F.3d at 369 (citing Sprint, 571 U.S. at 81). If “(1) state proceedings are currently\npending; (2) the proceedings involve an important state interest; and (3) the state proceedings\nwill provide the federal plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional claims,”\nwe may abstain from hearing the federal claim. Id.; see also Habich v. City of Dearborn,\n331 F.3d 524, 530 (6th Cir. 2003).\n\n Plaintiffs admit that the first two Middlesex factors are satisfied in this case. Appellants\nBr. at 21. However, they argue that the Ohio state proceedings would not give them an adequate\nopportunity to raise their constitutional arguments. “[T]he burden on this point rests on the\nfederal plaintiff to show ‘that the state procedural law barred presentation of its claims.’”\nPennzoil, 481 U.S. at 14 (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 432 (1979)) (brackets omitted).\nThe plaintiffs take issue with the district court’s assertion that they might seek a writ of certiorari\nto the United States Supreme Court should Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge Schweikert refuse\nto step aside and should the plaintiffs believe that these adjudicators’ conduct affected their\nconstitutional rights. They argue that certiorari is a federal, rather than state, remedy and\ntherefore that the third Middlesex factor would not be satisfied if a writ of certiorari from the\nUnited States Supreme Court is the only available remedy left. Appellants Br. at 23.\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 10\n\n\n We conclude that the state proceedings provide the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to\nraise their constitutional arguments.2 First, the plaintiffs made the same constitutional arguments\nregarding their due process rights to an unbiased adjudication in their affidavit of disqualification\nand motion to disqualify the Ohio Chief Justice as they have in this federal case. Compare R. 1-\n1 (Affidavit of Disqualification at 1–25) (Page ID #56–80), with R. 1 (Compl. at 5–37) (Page ID\n#5–37); Gilbert, 401 F.3d at 419 (“Plaintiffs had an adequate opportunity to raise their\nconstitutional challenge, as evidenced by the fact that their lengthy brief in support of their\nmotion to recuse contained the same arguments and proofs as presented in their complaint filed\nin federal court.”). Second, the plaintiffs may appeal any potential adverse final decision of the\nstate trial court, alleging that Judge Schweikert’s and Chief Justice O’Connor’s bias had tainted\nthe proceedings.3 The fact that this approach requires the use of the appellate process (including\na potential petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court) does not render it\ninadequate. See Shafizadeh, 476 F. App’x at 73 (concluding that there was “no dispute that the\nstate appellate process gave [the plaintiff] an adequate opportunity to raise his grievances\nconcerning [the judge presiding over his divorce in state court]”); see also Caperton v. A.T.\nMassey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (finding that the Due Process Clause required recusal of a\njustice on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and reversing and remanding the case).\n\n There are several circumstances under which, although Younger abstention would\nnormally be appropriate, the federal court should not abstain from hearing a case. The first is\nwhere “the state proceeding is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith.”\n\n 2The plaintiffs discuss Yohn v. Love, 887 F. Supp. 773 (E.D. Pa. 1995), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 76\nF.3d 508 (3d Cir. 1996), and from it argue that their “Due Process rights were violated” by alleged (but\nunsubstantiated) “telephone conversations between the Chief Justice and the trial judge,” leaving them with “no\nopportunity to have a fair and impartial hearing on the issues.” Appellants Br. at 29–30. However, this out-of-\ncircuit case concerned a petitioner seeking habeas relief, alleging improper judicial interference in his criminal trial\nand subsequent appeals. The facts of Yohn and the case at bar diverge beyond these differences in jurisdiction and\nposture. As the district court noted in its order denying the plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend, Yohn involved a\nChief Justice’s admitted and documented meddling in the trial court’s decision regarding a specific evidentiary\nquestion. R. 47 (Order at 2) (Page ID #2091) (citing Yohn, 887 F. Supp. at 782). In contrast, the plaintiffs offer\nnothing more than vague and unsubstantiated allegations of alleged improper communications between Judge\nSchweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor.\n 3The plaintiffs implicitly acknowledge the availability of the state appellate system to challenge any\ndeterminations that they allege to be biased. R. 1 (Compl. at 20) (Page ID #20) (“Appealing biased and clearly\nwrong rulings is not a fair remedy to Plaintiffs.”). They thus apparently challenge the fairness of the remedy.\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 11\n\n\nHuffman, 420 U.S. at 611. The second is where “the challenged statute is flagrantly and patently\nviolative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Moore, 442 U.S. at 424 (quoting Huffman, 420\nU.S. at 611). And third, the federal court should not abstain where there is “an extraordinarily\npressing need for immediate federal equitable relief.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 125\n(1975).\n\n In their opening brief, the plaintiffs do not expressly argue that their case falls under one\nof these three exceptions to Younger abstention. However, the defendants construe the plaintiffs’\nallegations that Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge Schweikert were biased as an implicit\ncontention that the third exception applies. O’Connor Br. at 20; Schweikert Br. at 16. The\nplaintiffs explicitly adopt this argument in their reply brief. Reply Br. at 6. However, we find\nthis tactic insufficient given that the plaintiffs never argued in the district court that their case fell\nwithin the third Younger exception.4 Instead, the plaintiffs cast their arguments that Judge\nSchweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor were biased as supporting the conclusion that the third\nMiddlesex factor was not met, not that the third exception to Younger applied.5 See, e.g., R. 19\n(Pl. Mem. Addressing the Non-Applicability of the Younger Abstention Doctrine at 5) (Page ID\n#1427); R. 36-1 (Pl. Mem. in Supp. of Pl. Mot. to Alter or Amend at 3) (Page ID #1775). Given\nthe lack of argument regarding the third exception to Younger abstention, the district court did\nnot address its applicability in its opinion. See R. 34 (Op. and Order) (Page ID #1755). “It is\nwell-settled that issues not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal\nare not properly before this Court.” Kusens v. Pascal Co., 448 F.3d 349, 368 (6th Cir. 2006).\nWe conclude that the plaintiffs forfeited their argument regarding the third exception to Younger\nby failing to raise it in the court below.\n\n\n\n 4The only references to the Younger abstention exceptions in the court below were made by Chief Justice\nO’Connor, who, in the same way as she did in the appellate briefing, defended against an argument about the third\nexception that was not actually present in the plaintiffs’ earlier briefing. See R. 12 (O’Connor Mem. in Opp. to Pl.\nAm. Mot. for TRO at 8) (Page ID #722); R. 27 (O’Connor Suppl. Br. on Younger Abstention at 7) (Page ID #1534)\n(“Plaintiffs seem to argue that the third exception to Younger applies here based on alleged bias.”).\n 5In their Reply Memorandum concerning Younger abstention, the plaintiffs quote the “flagrant\nunconstitutionality” language of the second Younger exception but offer no analysis to support a claim that their\ncase falls under it. R. 28 (Pl. Reply Mem. Further Addressing the Non-Applicability of the Younger Abstention\nDoctrine at 6) (Page ID #1549) (discussing “The Third Middlesex Factor And Flagrant Unconstitutionality”).\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 12\n\n\n The plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Sprint “reduced the scope\nof the Younger abstention doctrine in federal courts” and therefore that this case does not fall\nwithin its newly narrowed reach. Appellants Br. at 8. Although we agree that Sprint firmly\ndelineates and limits the types of cases that may qualify for Younger abstention, we disagree that\nthe present case falls outside the boundary Sprint set. Sprint synthesizes the Younger doctrine\nand highlights the interaction between the NOPSI categories and the Middlesex factors. Sprint,\n571 U.S. at 81. In Sprint, the Court articulates the firm requirement that a case fall within one of\nthe three previously established NOPSI categories to qualify for Younger abstention. Id. at 82\n(clarifying that “Younger extends to the three ‘exceptional circumstances’ identified in NOPSI,\nbut no further”). The Court further emphasizes that “[t]he three Middlesex conditions . . . [are]\nnot dispositive; they [are] instead, additional factors appropriately considered by the federal\ncourt before invoking Younger.” Id. at 81. The Sprint Court determined that the district court\nand Eighth Circuit had abstained inappropriately because the case before them did not fall within\none of the NOPSI categories and the lower courts had relied too heavily on the factors discussed\nin Middlesex. Id. at 79–81. We have determined that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the third\nNOPSI category and additionally satisfy the Middlesex factors. Accordingly, we have complied\nwith the Younger doctrine as limited by Sprint.\n\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if Younger abstention applies, the district court\nerred by dismissing their claim with prejudice. Appellants Br. at 34. Here, the plaintiffs are\ncorrect. “A dismissal based on Younger is without prejudice.” Chalupowski, 151 F. App’x, at 2\n(citing Maymo-Melendez v. Alvarez-Ramirez, 364 F.3d 27, 32 n.4 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,\n543 U.S. 872 (2004)). This is because “[a] dismissal with prejudice ordinarily operates as an\nadjudication on the merits,” which is inconsistent with the court’s Younger-based decision to\nabstain from hearing the case at all. Caldwell v. Camp, 594 F.2d 705, 708 (8th Cir. 1979).\nNeither we nor the district court have reached the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, our\nanalysis focuses on the inappropriateness of our exercise of jurisdiction in this case based on the\nsubstance of the plaintiffs’ claims and our relationship to the Ohio state courts. This federal-\ncourt dismissal therefore does not operate to bar the plaintiffs from again bringing the same\nclaims. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001) (“The primary\nmeaning of ‘dismissal without prejudice,’ we think, is dismissal without barring the plaintiff\n\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 13\n\n\nfrom returning later, to the same court, with the same underlying claim. That will also ordinarily\n(though not always) have the consequence of not barring the claim from other courts . . . .”);\nBragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ., 570 F.3d 775, 776 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting that preclusion of a suit\nbased on res judicata requires “a final decision on the merits”) (citation omitted). Accordingly,\nwe instruct the district court to modify its judgment to a dismissal without prejudice. See\nChalupowski, 151 F. App’x at 2.\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the district court correctly determined\nthat the Younger abstention doctrine permitted its abstention from entertaining the plaintiffs’\nclaims. We therefore AFFIRM. However, we REMAND so that the district court can amend\nits order to a dismissal without prejudice.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Frieda AARON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Maureen O'CONNOR and Mark R. Schweikert, in Their Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-30\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nRECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\\n File Name: 19a0013p.06\\n\\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\\n FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT\\n\\n\\n\\n FRIEDA AARON, et al., ┐\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants, │\\n │\\n > No. 18-3452\\n v. │\\n │\\n │\\n MAUREEN O’CONNOR and MARK R. SCHWEIKERT, in │\\n their official capacities, │\\n Defendants-Appellees. │\\n ┘\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.\\n No. 1:17-cv-00846—Michael R. Barrett, District Judge.\\n\\n Decided and Filed: January 30, 2019\\n\\n Before: MERRITT, GUY, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.\\n\\n _________________\\n\\n COUNSEL\\n\\nON BRIEF: Robert A. Winter, Jr., Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, for Appellants. Nicole M.\\nKoppitch, Steven T. Voigt, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio,\\nfor Appellee O’Connor. Lawrence E. Barbiere, Katherine L. Barbiere, SCHROEDER,\\nMAUNDRELL, BARBIERE & POWERS, Mason, Ohio, for Appellee Schweikert.\\n _________________\\n\\n OPINION\\n _________________\\n\\n KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. A large group of plaintiffs brought medical\\nmalpractice claims in Ohio state court against a doctor who operated on them and against several\\nhospitals where he worked. The plaintiffs allege that the judge presiding over their case, Judge\\nMark R. Schweikert, and Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court were\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 2\\n\\n\\nbiased against their claims. In accordance with Ohio law, they filed affidavits of disqualification\\nagainst Judge Schweikert, and requested that Chief Justice O’Connor recuse herself from\\ndeciding Judge Schweikert’s disqualification. Soon thereafter, they filed the instant suit in the\\nUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asking that the court enjoin Chief\\nJustice O’Connor from ruling on the affidavit of disqualification pertaining to Judge Schweikert\\nand enjoin Judge Schweikert from taking any action in their cases before the affidavit of\\ndisqualification was ruled upon. Because the Younger abstention doctrine applies to this\\nsituation, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision to abstain from hearing the plaintiffs’ claims\\nand dismiss the case. However, we REMAND so that the district court can amend its order to\\ndismiss the case without prejudice.\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n\\n The plaintiffs, former patients who underwent back surgery with Dr. Abubakar Atiq\\nDurrani, M.D., brought suit in Ohio state courts against Durrani and several hospitals in the\\nCincinnati area seeking tort damages for medical malpractice. R. 1 (Compl. at 7) (Page ID #7).\\nNumerous cases, involving over 500 plaintiffs, have been litigated for over five years in state\\ncourts before several judges. Id. at 1, 7, 20–25 (Page ID #1, 7, 20–25). The plaintiffs allege that\\nJustice Maureen O’Connor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, eventually\\nappointed Judge Mark R. Schweikert, a Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge, to\\noversee the Durrani cases. Appellants Br. at 4; R. 1 (Compl. at 15, 35) (Page ID #15, 35). The\\nplaintiffs’ complaint expresses their disagreement with several of Judge Schweikert’s decisions\\nregarding the litigation and alleges that Chief Justice O’Connor “has informed and does inform\\nJudge Mark Schweikert how to rule on issues before him and he has followed her orders.” Id. at\\n25 (Page ID #25). Due to their perception that Judge Schweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor\\nwere biased against them and that that bias was impacting the litigation, on December 15, 2017,\\nthe plaintiffs’ counsel filed an “Affidavit of Disqualification of Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor\\nand Judge Mark Schweikert” with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio. R. 1-1 (Aff. of\\nDisqualification) (Page ID #55). The affidavit alleged that Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge\\nSchweikert have “a bias and a prejudice against Plaintiffs and their claims.” Id. (Page ID #56).\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 3\\n\\n\\n Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03 provides for the disqualification of the judge assigned to a\\nstate-court case in certain circumstances. “If a judge of the court of common pleas . . . allegedly\\nis related to or has a bias or prejudice for or against a party to a proceeding pending before the\\ncourt . . . the party’s counsel may file an affidavit of disqualification with the clerk of the\\nsupreme court.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(A). The affidavit must include “specific\\nallegations on which the claim of interest, bias, prejudice, or disqualification is based and the\\nfacts to support each of those allegations.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(B)(1). Filing of the\\naffidavit “deprives the judge against whom the affidavit was filed of any authority to preside in\\nthe proceeding until the chief justice of the supreme court, or a justice of the supreme court\\ndesignated by the chief justice, rules on the affidavit.” OHIO REV. CODE § 2701.03(D)(1).\\n\\n The plaintiffs’ affidavit of disqualification also argued that Chief Justice O’Connor\\nshould not be permitted to decide Judge Schweikert’s disqualification because of the plaintiffs’\\nallegation that she herself is biased against them. Ohio Supreme Court Rule of Practice § 4.04\\nprovides for the disqualification and recusal of state supreme court justices in certain\\ncircumstances.1 Section 4.04(B)(1) provides that “[a] party to a case pending before the [Ohio]\\nSupreme Court . . . may request the recusal of a justice by filing a request with the Clerk of the\\n[Ohio] Supreme Court.” The request must be supported by an affidavit explaining why the\\nrecusal is requested and including factual support. Ohio S. Ct. Prac. R. § 4.04(B)(1). Then,\\n“[t]he justice named in the request shall submit a written response to the Clerk indicating\\nwhether the justice will recuse from the case.” The Clerk shall provide the parties with the\\nresponse. Ohio S. Ct. Prac. R. § 4.04(C).\\n\\n On December 18, 2017, three days after filing their affidavit with the Clerk of the\\nSupreme Court of Ohio, the plaintiffs filed suit against Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge\\nSchweikert in federal district court alleging due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.\\nThey sought an injunction preventing Chief Justice O’Connor from ruling on their earlier-filed\\n\\n\\n 1The district court noted that it was “not convinced Plaintiffs have properly sought the recusal of Chief\\nJustice O’Connor” because the plaintiffs had “filed a combined Affidavit of Disqualification, seeking to disqualify\\nJudge Schweikert and asking a justice other than Chief Justice O’Connor to rule on it. In support, Plaintiffs cite S.\\nCt. Prac. R. 14.6. There is, however, no Rule 14.6.” R. 34 (Op. and Order at 10 n.6) (Page ID #1764). On appeal,\\nthe plaintiffs have cited the relevant provision of the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 4\\n\\n\\naffidavit of disqualification and preventing Judge Schweikert “from taking any action on their\\ncases” before the affidavit of disqualification is ruled upon. R. 1 (Compl. at 2) (Page ID #2). It\\nappears that the injunction that the plaintiffs sought against Judge Schweikert merely asked the\\nfederal district court to enjoin him from violating Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03(D)(1), which\\ndeprived him of authority to continue presiding over the state case until the affidavit of\\ndisqualification was ruled upon. The Supreme Court of Ohio appears to have sought to comply\\nwith Ohio Revised Code § 2701.03(D)(1) by issuing its December 20, 2017 letter to Judge\\nSchweikert informing him of the affidavit that had been filed seeking his disqualification and\\ninstructing that “no further judicial rulings should be made by [him] until the affidavit has been\\nruled on by Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor or a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court designated\\nby the chief justice . . . .” R. 29-1 (Page ID #1554).\\n\\n On December 27, 2017, the district court informed the parties that it intended to rule on\\nthe preliminary issue of abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), before\\naddressing the merits of the complaint. R. 34 (Op. and Order) (Page ID #1755). Accordingly,\\nthe parties briefed the court on whether Younger abstention applies and the court heard oral\\narguments on the issue. Id. On January 26, 2018, the district court held that Younger abstention\\napplied and dismissed the federal case with prejudice. Id. at 10 (Page ID #1764). The plaintiffs\\nmoved to alter or amend the judgment of the district court. R. 36 (Pl. Mot. to Alter or Amend)\\n(Page ID #1766). The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend its judgment\\non April 13, 2018. R. 47 (Order) (Page ID #2090). Plaintiffs then timely filed their notice of\\nappeal. R. 48 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID #2093).\\n\\n During the pendency of their federal suit, the plaintiffs filed in state court additional\\naffidavits of disqualification against Judge Schweikert. O’Connor Br. at 5. After the district\\ncourt’s original dismissal of the case, Chief Justice O’Connor denied the plaintiffs’ affidavits of\\ndisqualification on February 5, 2018. Schweikert Br. at 3. The plaintiffs then filed additional\\naffidavits seeking the disqualification of Judge Schweikert. Schweikert Br. at 3. On February\\n26, 2018, Chief Justice O’Connor denied those additional affidavits of disqualification. Id.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 5\\n\\n\\n II. DISCUSSION\\n\\nA. Standard of Review\\n\\n We review de novo the district court’s judgment abstaining from hearing a case under the\\nYounger doctrine. Doe v. Univ. of Kentucky, 860 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 2017).\\n\\nB. Mootness\\n\\n Defendant Schweikert argues that the plaintiffs’ claims are moot because “[s]ince the\\nfiling of their Motion for injunctive relief, Chief Justice O’Connor has ruled upon, and\\nsummarily dismissed, seventeen Affidavits of Disqualification filed by Plaintiffs’ [sic] against\\nJudge Schweikert and Judge Schweikert is currently presiding over the underlying medical\\nmalpractice actions involving the Plaintiffs.” Schweikert Br. at 20. We address mootness before\\nwe address Younger abstention because mootness is a jurisdictional issue. See Rettig v. Kent\\nCity Sch. Dist., 788 F.2d 328, 330 (6th Cir. 1986). If a case is moot, the “case or controversy”\\nrequirement of Article III of the Constitution is not satisfied and we do not have jurisdiction to\\nhear the case. Id. The abstention doctrines, however, assume jurisdiction but decline to exercise\\nit in limited circumstances. See, e.g., Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013).\\n\\n “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a\\nlegally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Cty. of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631\\n(1979) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)). The plaintiffs argue that the\\ncase should not be considered moot because it falls under an exception that allows for judicial\\nreview when “the challenged activity is capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Reply Br. at\\n7–9 (quoting Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368, 371 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S.\\n1178 (2006)). “This exception applies when ‘(1) the challenged action was in its duration too\\nshort to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable\\nexpectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.’”\\nLawrence, 430 F.3d at 371 (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975)). Because\\nthe plaintiffs assert that this exception to the normal mootness rule applies, they bear the burden\\nof demonstrating that both criteria are met. See id.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 6\\n\\n\\n The plaintiffs have carried their burden and satisfied both prongs. First, the challenged\\naction was completed nearly immediately after the district court entered judgment, and before the\\ncase could reach the court of appeals. The district court decided to abstain from hearing the case\\non January 26, 2018. The plaintiffs filed their motion to alter judgment on February 5, 2018.\\nChief Justice O’Connor denied the affidavits of disqualification on the same day, ruling on them\\nherself (rather than deferring to another justice) and concluding that Judge Schweikert could\\ncontinue to preside over the litigation. Therefore, her challenged action (failing to recuse herself\\nfrom ruling on the affidavits for Judge Schweikert’s disqualification) had already been\\ncompleted before its validity could be fully litigated on appeal in this court. See Speer v. City of\\nOregon, 847 F.2d 310, 311 (6th Cir. 1988) (finding the first prong satisfied where the plaintiff\\nsought an injunction requiring her name to be placed on an electoral ballot, but the election had\\nalready passed by the time the court of appeals heard her claim). The second prong is satisfied if\\n“the controversy [is] capable of repetition and not . . . whether the claimant ha[s] demonstrated\\nthat a recurrence of the dispute [is] more probable than not.” Lawrence, 430 F.3d at 371\\n(quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 319 n.6 (1988)) (emphasis in original). There is a\\nreasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will file another affidavit of disqualification for Judge\\nSchweikert, request the recusal of Chief Justice O’Connor in ruling on it, and still have the Ohio\\nChief Justice determine the merit of the affidavit of disqualification. The plaintiffs have already\\nfiled additional affidavits of disqualification and the Ohio Chief Justice has denied them.\\nSchweikert Br. at 3. The state litigation is ongoing, and the situation is certainly capable of\\nrepeating itself.\\n\\nC. Younger Analysis\\n\\n We generally “are obliged to decide cases within the scope of federal jurisdiction.”\\nSprint, 571 U.S. at 72. However, in certain circumstances, allowing a federal suit to proceed\\nthreatens “undue interference with state proceedings,” and the proper course is for the federal\\ncourt to abstain from entertaining the action. Id.; see Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 10\\n(1987) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971)). The Younger breed of abstention\\nrequires abstention in three different circumstances outlined in New Orleans Public Service, Inc.\\nv. Council of New Orleans (“NOPSI”), 491 U.S. 350 (1989). The Supreme Court has noted that\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 7\\n\\n\\nthese three categories are the “exception[]” rather than the rule. Sprint, 571 U.S. at 73 (quoting\\nNOPSI, 491 U.S. at 367). First, we may abstain under Younger “when there is an ongoing state\\ncriminal prosecution.” Doe, 860 F.3d at 369. Second, we may abstain when there is a civil\\nenforcement proceeding that is “akin to [a] criminal prosecution[].” Sprint, 571 U.S. at 72.\\nThird, we may abstain when there is a “civil proceeding[] involving certain orders that are\\nuniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions.” NOPSI,\\n491 U.S. at 368.\\n\\n The prototypical examples of situations falling within this third category are Juidice v.\\nVail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977), and Pennzoil. In Juidice, a state-court judgment debtor filed suit in\\nfederal court against a state-court justice asking the federal court to enjoin the state-court justice\\nfrom enforcing the state contempt statute against him. 430 U.S. at 328–30. The Supreme Court\\nconcluded that Younger abstention applied, deeming the “vital consideration” to be “the notion\\nof ‘comity,’ that is, a proper respect for state functions . . . .” Id. at 334 (quoting Huffman v.\\nPursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 601 (1975)) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Federal\\nabstention was proper, avoiding intrusion into “the contempt process, through which [the state]\\nvindicates the regular operation of its judicial system.” Id. at 335. In Pennzoil, Texaco filed a\\nsuit in federal court seeking to enjoin Pennzoil from enforcing a jury verdict rendered against\\nTexaco by a Texas state court. 481 U.S. at 6. The Supreme Court held that abstention under\\nYounger was appropriate there as well, consistent with its repeated recognition “that the States\\nhave important interests in administering certain aspects of their judicial systems.” Id. at 12–13.\\nThe Court determined that the Texas state court’s ability to enforce its own jury verdicts was\\nnecessary not only “to vindicate and preserve the private interests of competing litigants,” but\\nalso to “stand[] in aid of the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are\\nnot rendered nugatory.” Id. at 13 (quoting Juidice, 430 U.S. at 336 n.12).\\n\\n We conclude that the ability of the courts of the State of Ohio to determine when recusal\\nof a judge or justice is appropriate and to administer the recusal decision process in accordance\\nwith state law operates “uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their\\njudicial functions.” NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 368. In previous decisions, we have held that Younger\\nabstention applies under the third NOPSI category where plaintiffs sought federal injunctions\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 8\\n\\n\\nrequiring the recusal of state-court judges. Shafizadeh v. Bowles, 476 F. App’x 71, 72–73 (6th\\nCir. 2012) (abstaining under Younger where a plaintiff sought “an injunction to direct the judge\\nwho presided over [his] divorce to remove himself from the case,” alleging that the judge was\\nbiased against him); Gilbert v. Ferry, 401 F.3d 411, 419 (6th Cir. 2005) (concluding that\\nYounger demanded abstention where plaintiffs sought a federal-court declaration that the failure\\nof four justices of the Michigan Supreme Court to recuse themselves from an ongoing state-court\\ncases violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights); Bodell v. McDonald, 4 F. App’x 276, 279 (6th\\nCir. 2001) (concluding that Younger abstention applied where a plaintiff “asked the district court\\nto enter an order preventing [a certain state judge] from presiding over any cases involving [the\\nplaintiff]”); see also Strand v. Dawson, 468 F. App’x 910, 911 (10th Cir. 2012) (affirming\\ndistrict court’s dismissal on Younger grounds of suit against state court judge who “refused to\\nrecuse himself in a pending state court eviction action involving Plaintiffs”); Thomas v. Piccione,\\nNo. 13-425, 2014 WL 1653066, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2014) (concluding that abstention\\nunder Younger was appropriate, reasoning that “[i]n asking [the federal district court] to order\\nthe recusal of [the state court judge], plaintiff indirectly challenges Pennsylvania courts’ process\\nfor judicial recusals”).\\n\\n The plaintiffs here argue for a narrow construction of the third NOPSI category, positing\\nthat because “[h]ere there was no order or judgment of an Ohio court that will be implicated by\\nthis Court’s exercise of jurisdiction,” Younger abstention cannot apply. Appellants Br. at 13, 16.\\nDefendants counter that the plaintiffs propose an overly narrow reading of the third category that\\ncannot be correct due to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pennzoil. O’Connor Br. at 16. The\\ndefendants offer the truer interpretation of Younger precedent.\\n\\n In Pennzoil, Texaco filed its federal suit before the Texas court entered judgment for\\nPennzoil, asking the federal court “to enjoin Pennzoil from taking any action to enforce the\\njudgment” because of the alleged unconstitutionality of Texas’s “judgment enforcement\\nprocedures.” 481 U.S. at 6 & n.5. Texaco’s federal suit sought to prevent the state court from\\ntaking a specific legal action, not merely from enforcing a preexisting order. The same is true of\\nthe plaintiffs’ suit here. In articulating the third NOPSI category, the Supreme Court has cited\\nPennzoil as an illustrative example, implicitly validating Younger abstention where a state-\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 9\\n\\n\\ncourt’s order had not yet issued. See Sprint, 571 U.S. at 79 (citing Pennzoil as involving\\nproceedings that “touch[ed] on a state court’s ability to perform its judicial function”).\\nTherefore, we do not read the third category so narrowly as to preclude Younger abstention when\\nthe state court has not yet issued an order. See also Chalupowski v. Berry, 151 F. App’x 1, 2 (1st\\nCir. 2005) (affirming the district court’s dismissal on Younger grounds where the “Appellants\\nasked the federal court to order the defendant, a state court appellate judge before whom a\\nmotion for contempt was then the only pending matter, to recuse herself ‘from further hearing in\\nthis matter’”) (emphasis added).\\n\\n Sprint dictates that once we have determined that a case falls into a NOPSI category in\\nwhich Younger abstention may be proper, we next analyze the case “using a three-factor test laid\\nout in Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982).”\\nDoe, 860 F.3d at 369 (citing Sprint, 571 U.S. at 81). If “(1) state proceedings are currently\\npending; (2) the proceedings involve an important state interest; and (3) the state proceedings\\nwill provide the federal plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to raise his constitutional claims,”\\nwe may abstain from hearing the federal claim. Id.; see also Habich v. City of Dearborn,\\n331 F.3d 524, 530 (6th Cir. 2003).\\n\\n Plaintiffs admit that the first two Middlesex factors are satisfied in this case. Appellants\\nBr. at 21. However, they argue that the Ohio state proceedings would not give them an adequate\\nopportunity to raise their constitutional arguments. “[T]he burden on this point rests on the\\nfederal plaintiff to show ‘that the state procedural law barred presentation of its claims.’”\\nPennzoil, 481 U.S. at 14 (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 432 (1979)) (brackets omitted).\\nThe plaintiffs take issue with the district court’s assertion that they might seek a writ of certiorari\\nto the United States Supreme Court should Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge Schweikert refuse\\nto step aside and should the plaintiffs believe that these adjudicators’ conduct affected their\\nconstitutional rights. They argue that certiorari is a federal, rather than state, remedy and\\ntherefore that the third Middlesex factor would not be satisfied if a writ of certiorari from the\\nUnited States Supreme Court is the only available remedy left. Appellants Br. at 23.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 10\\n\\n\\n We conclude that the state proceedings provide the plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to\\nraise their constitutional arguments.2 First, the plaintiffs made the same constitutional arguments\\nregarding their due process rights to an unbiased adjudication in their affidavit of disqualification\\nand motion to disqualify the Ohio Chief Justice as they have in this federal case. Compare R. 1-\\n1 (Affidavit of Disqualification at 1–25) (Page ID #56–80), with R. 1 (Compl. at 5–37) (Page ID\\n#5–37); Gilbert, 401 F.3d at 419 (“Plaintiffs had an adequate opportunity to raise their\\nconstitutional challenge, as evidenced by the fact that their lengthy brief in support of their\\nmotion to recuse contained the same arguments and proofs as presented in their complaint filed\\nin federal court.”). Second, the plaintiffs may appeal any potential adverse final decision of the\\nstate trial court, alleging that Judge Schweikert’s and Chief Justice O’Connor’s bias had tainted\\nthe proceedings.3 The fact that this approach requires the use of the appellate process (including\\na potential petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court) does not render it\\ninadequate. See Shafizadeh, 476 F. App’x at 73 (concluding that there was “no dispute that the\\nstate appellate process gave [the plaintiff] an adequate opportunity to raise his grievances\\nconcerning [the judge presiding over his divorce in state court]”); see also Caperton v. A.T.\\nMassey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (finding that the Due Process Clause required recusal of a\\njustice on the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals and reversing and remanding the case).\\n\\n There are several circumstances under which, although Younger abstention would\\nnormally be appropriate, the federal court should not abstain from hearing a case. The first is\\nwhere “the state proceeding is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith.”\\n\\n 2The plaintiffs discuss Yohn v. Love, 887 F. Supp. 773 (E.D. Pa. 1995), aff’d in part and vacated in part, 76\\nF.3d 508 (3d Cir. 1996), and from it argue that their “Due Process rights were violated” by alleged (but\\nunsubstantiated) “telephone conversations between the Chief Justice and the trial judge,” leaving them with “no\\nopportunity to have a fair and impartial hearing on the issues.” Appellants Br. at 29–30. However, this out-of-\\ncircuit case concerned a petitioner seeking habeas relief, alleging improper judicial interference in his criminal trial\\nand subsequent appeals. The facts of Yohn and the case at bar diverge beyond these differences in jurisdiction and\\nposture. As the district court noted in its order denying the plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend, Yohn involved a\\nChief Justice’s admitted and documented meddling in the trial court’s decision regarding a specific evidentiary\\nquestion. R. 47 (Order at 2) (Page ID #2091) (citing Yohn, 887 F. Supp. at 782). In contrast, the plaintiffs offer\\nnothing more than vague and unsubstantiated allegations of alleged improper communications between Judge\\nSchweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor.\\n 3The plaintiffs implicitly acknowledge the availability of the state appellate system to challenge any\\ndeterminations that they allege to be biased. R. 1 (Compl. at 20) (Page ID #20) (“Appealing biased and clearly\\nwrong rulings is not a fair remedy to Plaintiffs.”). They thus apparently challenge the fairness of the remedy.\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 11\\n\\n\\nHuffman, 420 U.S. at 611. The second is where “the challenged statute is flagrantly and patently\\nviolative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Moore, 442 U.S. at 424 (quoting Huffman, 420\\nU.S. at 611). And third, the federal court should not abstain where there is “an extraordinarily\\npressing need for immediate federal equitable relief.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 125\\n(1975).\\n\\n In their opening brief, the plaintiffs do not expressly argue that their case falls under one\\nof these three exceptions to Younger abstention. However, the defendants construe the plaintiffs’\\nallegations that Chief Justice O’Connor and Judge Schweikert were biased as an implicit\\ncontention that the third exception applies. O’Connor Br. at 20; Schweikert Br. at 16. The\\nplaintiffs explicitly adopt this argument in their reply brief. Reply Br. at 6. However, we find\\nthis tactic insufficient given that the plaintiffs never argued in the district court that their case fell\\nwithin the third Younger exception.4 Instead, the plaintiffs cast their arguments that Judge\\nSchweikert and Chief Justice O’Connor were biased as supporting the conclusion that the third\\nMiddlesex factor was not met, not that the third exception to Younger applied.5 See, e.g., R. 19\\n(Pl. Mem. Addressing the Non-Applicability of the Younger Abstention Doctrine at 5) (Page ID\\n#1427); R. 36-1 (Pl. Mem. in Supp. of Pl. Mot. to Alter or Amend at 3) (Page ID #1775). Given\\nthe lack of argument regarding the third exception to Younger abstention, the district court did\\nnot address its applicability in its opinion. See R. 34 (Op. and Order) (Page ID #1755). “It is\\nwell-settled that issues not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal\\nare not properly before this Court.” Kusens v. Pascal Co., 448 F.3d 349, 368 (6th Cir. 2006).\\nWe conclude that the plaintiffs forfeited their argument regarding the third exception to Younger\\nby failing to raise it in the court below.\\n\\n\\n\\n 4The only references to the Younger abstention exceptions in the court below were made by Chief Justice\\nO’Connor, who, in the same way as she did in the appellate briefing, defended against an argument about the third\\nexception that was not actually present in the plaintiffs’ earlier briefing. See R. 12 (O’Connor Mem. in Opp. to Pl.\\nAm. Mot. for TRO at 8) (Page ID #722); R. 27 (O’Connor Suppl. Br. on Younger Abstention at 7) (Page ID #1534)\\n(“Plaintiffs seem to argue that the third exception to Younger applies here based on alleged bias.”).\\n 5In their Reply Memorandum concerning Younger abstention, the plaintiffs quote the “flagrant\\nunconstitutionality” language of the second Younger exception but offer no analysis to support a claim that their\\ncase falls under it. R. 28 (Pl. Reply Mem. Further Addressing the Non-Applicability of the Younger Abstention\\nDoctrine at 6) (Page ID #1549) (discussing “The Third Middlesex Factor And Flagrant Unconstitutionality”).\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 12\\n\\n\\n The plaintiffs argue that the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Sprint “reduced the scope\\nof the Younger abstention doctrine in federal courts” and therefore that this case does not fall\\nwithin its newly narrowed reach. Appellants Br. at 8. Although we agree that Sprint firmly\\ndelineates and limits the types of cases that may qualify for Younger abstention, we disagree that\\nthe present case falls outside the boundary Sprint set. Sprint synthesizes the Younger doctrine\\nand highlights the interaction between the NOPSI categories and the Middlesex factors. Sprint,\\n571 U.S. at 81. In Sprint, the Court articulates the firm requirement that a case fall within one of\\nthe three previously established NOPSI categories to qualify for Younger abstention. Id. at 82\\n(clarifying that “Younger extends to the three ‘exceptional circumstances’ identified in NOPSI,\\nbut no further”). The Court further emphasizes that “[t]he three Middlesex conditions . . . [are]\\nnot dispositive; they [are] instead, additional factors appropriately considered by the federal\\ncourt before invoking Younger.” Id. at 81. The Sprint Court determined that the district court\\nand Eighth Circuit had abstained inappropriately because the case before them did not fall within\\none of the NOPSI categories and the lower courts had relied too heavily on the factors discussed\\nin Middlesex. Id. at 79–81. We have determined that the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the third\\nNOPSI category and additionally satisfy the Middlesex factors. Accordingly, we have complied\\nwith the Younger doctrine as limited by Sprint.\\n\\n Finally, the plaintiffs argue that even if Younger abstention applies, the district court\\nerred by dismissing their claim with prejudice. Appellants Br. at 34. Here, the plaintiffs are\\ncorrect. “A dismissal based on Younger is without prejudice.” Chalupowski, 151 F. App’x, at 2\\n(citing Maymo-Melendez v. Alvarez-Ramirez, 364 F.3d 27, 32 n.4 (1st Cir.), cert. denied,\\n543 U.S. 872 (2004)). This is because “[a] dismissal with prejudice ordinarily operates as an\\nadjudication on the merits,” which is inconsistent with the court’s Younger-based decision to\\nabstain from hearing the case at all. Caldwell v. Camp, 594 F.2d 705, 708 (8th Cir. 1979).\\nNeither we nor the district court have reached the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Instead, our\\nanalysis focuses on the inappropriateness of our exercise of jurisdiction in this case based on the\\nsubstance of the plaintiffs’ claims and our relationship to the Ohio state courts. This federal-\\ncourt dismissal therefore does not operate to bar the plaintiffs from again bringing the same\\nclaims. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001) (“The primary\\nmeaning of ‘dismissal without prejudice,’ we think, is dismissal without barring the plaintiff\\n\\f No. 18-3452 Aaron et al. v. O’Connor et al. Page 13\\n\\n\\nfrom returning later, to the same court, with the same underlying claim. That will also ordinarily\\n(though not always) have the consequence of not barring the claim from other courts . . . .”);\\nBragg v. Flint Bd. of Educ., 570 F.3d 775, 776 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting that preclusion of a suit\\nbased on res judicata requires “a final decision on the merits”) (citation omitted). Accordingly,\\nwe instruct the district court to modify its judgment to a dismissal without prejudice. See\\nChalupowski, 151 F. App’x at 2.\\n\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n\\n For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the district court correctly determined\\nthat the Younger abstention doctrine permitted its abstention from entertaining the plaintiffs’\\nclaims. We therefore AFFIRM. However, we REMAND so that the district court can amend\\nits order to a dismissal without prejudice.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":163,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578281,"string":"4,578,281"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Eliseo BELTRAN-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1799"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Rovner, Hamilton, Barrett\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1799\\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\\n Petitioner,\\n v.\\n\\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\\n Respondent.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\\n No. A089-856-143\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\\n\\f2 No. 18-1799\\n\\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\\n1, 7 (2004).\\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\\nedent says otherwise.\\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\\n\\fNo. 18-1799 3\\n\\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\\none’s health or ability to walk.\\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\\n\\f4 No. 18-1799\\n\\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\\nwe need not decide the issue.\\n The petition for review is DENIED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355534/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578281/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Eliseo BELTRAN-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1799\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\n Petitioner,\n v.\n\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\n Respondent.\n ____________________\n\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\n No. A089-856-143\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\n\f2 No. 18-1799\n\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\n1, 7 (2004).\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\nedent says otherwise.\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\n\fNo. 18-1799 3\n\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\none’s health or ability to walk.\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\n\f4 No. 18-1799\n\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\nwe need not decide the issue.\n The petition for review is DENIED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Eliseo BELTRAN-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1799\\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\\n Petitioner,\\n v.\\n\\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\\n Respondent.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\\n No. A089-856-143\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\\n\\f2 No. 18-1799\\n\\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\\n1, 7 (2004).\\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\\nedent says otherwise.\\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\\n\\fNo. 18-1799 3\\n\\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\\none’s health or ability to walk.\\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\\n\\f4 No. 18-1799\\n\\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\\nwe need not decide the issue.\\n The petition for review is DENIED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":164,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578297,"string":"4,578,297"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"STATE of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee, Appeal Of: Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, Proposed Intervenor."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"State of Illinois v. City of Chicago"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2805"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Ripple, Kanne, Rovner\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2805\\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\nCITY OF CHICAGO,\\n Defendant-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF:\\n FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7,\\n Proposed Intervenor.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17-cv-6260 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. On August 29, 2017, the State of Illi-\\nnois filed suit in federal court against the City of Chicago, al-\\nleging that the Chicago Police Department’s use-of-force pol-\\nicies and practices violate the federal constitution and Illinois\\nlaw. Two days later, the parties moved to stay the proceedings\\n\\f2 No. 18-2805\\n\\nwhile they negotiated a consent decree. Almost immediately\\nafter the State filed the complaint, the Fraternal Order of Po-\\nlice, Lodge No. 7, publicly indicated its opposition to any con-\\nsent decree, citing fears that the decree might impair its col-\\nlective bargaining rights. For months, the Lodge monitored\\nthe ongoing negotiations and met informally with the State’s\\nrepresentatives. But the Lodge waited until June 6, 2018, to file\\na motion to intervene in the suit. The district court denied the\\nmotion to intervene as untimely. Because the Lodge knew\\nfrom the beginning that a consent decree might impact its in-\\nterests but delayed its motion for nearly a year, and because\\nits allegations of prejudice are speculative, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In April 2016, the Chicago Police Accountability Task\\nForce issued a report finding that the Chicago Police Depart-\\nment’s “response to violence is not sufficiently imbued with\\nConstitutional policing tactics.” (R. 1-1 at 14.) In January 2017,\\nthe United States Department of Justice released a report con-\\ncluding that the Chicago Police Department exhibits a pattern\\nor practice of the unconstitutional use of force. The report\\nfound that Chicago’s inadequate accountability mechanisms\\nare a significant contributor to the repeated constitutional vi-\\nolations. The Department of Justice suggested that effective\\nreform was unlikely without “[a] court-ordered, over-arching\\nplan … that is overseen by a federal judge.” (Id. at 211.)\\n On August 29, 2017, the State of Illinois filed suit against\\nthe City of Chicago, alleging that the City’s policing practices\\ninvolve the repeated use of excessive force. Two days later,\\nthe parties moved to stay proceedings while they engaged in\\nconsent decree negotiations. The district court granted that\\nmotion.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 3\\n\\n Immediately after the State filed suit, the Lodge publicly\\nexpressed its opposition to any consent decree. In a news ar-\\nticle published the evening of August 29, 2017, the Lodge’s\\npresident, Kevin Graham, described a consent decree as a “a\\npotential catastrophe for Chicago.” (R. 73 at 4 & n.1.) Mr. Gra-\\nham elaborated on his opposition to a consent decree in the\\nLodge’s September 2017 newsletter. He voiced the fear that a\\nconsent decree might “seriously threaten our collective bar-\\ngaining rights” and assured the Lodge that no one in his ad-\\nministration believed that a consent decree was “necessary.”\\n(R. 73-1 at 13.)\\n Despite these public concerns over the suit’s potential im-\\npact on collective bargaining rights, the Lodge did not seek to\\nintervene at that time. Instead, during the subsequent months\\nof negotiation between the State and City, the Lodge repeat-\\nedly met separately with the State. At those meetings, the\\nLodge expressed its concern that the inchoate consent decree\\nmight conflict with provisions of the Collective Bargaining\\nAgreement (“CBA”) or with Illinois statutes which protect po-\\nlice officers. The State told the Lodge that it did not intend to\\nintrude into matters of police officer discipline or other “core\\nmandatory matters.” (R. 81-4 at 6.)\\n To that end, and to avoid the need for the Lodge to inter-\\nvene, the State and Lodge focused on creating “carve-out”\\nlanguage that would ensure the consent decree left CBA\\nrights intact. During these informal discussions, which began\\nin the fall of 2017 and continued well into the spring of 2018,\\nthe State often assured the Lodge that it was working with the\\nCity to avoid any impact on CBA rights. The State never pro-\\nvided the Lodge with copies of the proposed consent decree\\nor with finalized carve-out language. Nevertheless, the State’s\\n\\f4 No. 18-2805\\n\\nrepresentative, Gary Caplan, assured the Lodge that the draft\\nconsent decree did not conflict with the CBA and that, if any\\nconsent decree provisions did conflict, the CBA would con-\\ntrol.\\n Between March 21, 2018, and May 25, 2018, the district\\ncourt met four times with the parties to discuss the consent\\ndecree negotiations. On two of those occasions, Lodge repre-\\nsentatives appeared at the courtroom and requested permis-\\nsion to attend the session. Both times, the City and State re-\\nfused to consent to the request.\\n On June 6, 2018, the Lodge moved to intervene. The Lodge\\nhas offered a variety of explanations for its decision to seek\\nintervention. In the motion to intervene, the Lodge attributed\\nthe motion to its discovery that, on May 15, 2018, a number of\\ncommunity groups “published and undoubtedly submitted\\nto the [State] a report that contains recommendations for the\\nconsent decree.” (R. 51 at 5.) The Lodge emphasized that the\\nCBA “contains provisions addressing a number of the sub-\\njects raised in the complaint filed by the Office of the Illinois\\nAttorney General in this case.” (Id. at 6.) Because many of the\\nrecommendations made by the community groups would re-\\nquire “substantive modifications” to practices or activities\\ncovered by the CBA, the Lodge believed that intervention was\\nnecessary. The Lodge also argued that the complaint—filed\\nnine months earlier—sought injunctive relief that would con-\\nflict with the CBA. Thus, at the time, the Lodge did not cite its\\nexclusion from negotiations as a reason for intervention. Like-\\nwise, the Lodge did not move to intervene due to surprise lan-\\nguage in the consent decree (because the Lodge had not yet\\nreceived a copy of the draft consent decree).\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 5\\n\\n In early July 2018, the Lodge filed a motion to hold pro-\\nceedings in abeyance while the court considered the motion\\nto intervene. In that motion, the Lodge argued that it had\\n“reason to believe that the consent decree will impact the col-\\nlective bargaining agreement,” but the Lodge based that be-\\nlief “on the January 2017 Department of Justice report … and\\nthe representations in the [August 31, 2017] motion to stay\\nconcerning the failure of the City to administer effective po-\\nlice discipline.” (R. 65 at 2.)\\n On July 27, 2018, the State and City made the proposed\\nconsent decree public. The draft includes numerous provi-\\nsions which the Lodge believes conflict with the disciplinary\\nand investigative provisions of the CBA. The proposed con-\\nsent decree also contains a paragraph addressing conflicts be-\\ntween the consent decree and CBAs:\\n 687. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to\\n (a) alter any of the CBAs between the City and the\\n Unions; or (b) impair or conflict with the collective\\n bargaining rights of employees in those units under\\n the IPLRA. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be\\n interpreted as obligating the City or the Unions to\\n violate (i) the terms of the CBAs, including any suc-\\n cessor CBAs resulting from the negotiation process\\n … mandated by the IPLRA with respect to the sub-\\n ject of wages, hours and terms and conditions of em-\\n ployment unless such terms violate the U.S. Consti-\\n tution, Illinois law, or public policy, or (ii) any bar-\\n gaining obligations under the IPLRA, and/or waive\\n any rights or obligations thereunder. In negotiating\\n Successor CBAs … , the City shall use its best efforts\\n to secure modifications to the CBAs consistent with\\n the terms of this Consent Decree, or to the extent\\n\\f6 No. 18-2805\\n\\n necessary to provide for the effective implementa-\\n tion of the provisions of this Consent Decree.\\n\\n(R. 81-2 at 217.)\\n On August 8, 2018, the district court directed the State,\\nCity, and Lodge to submit supplemental briefs addressing the\\nLodge’s contention that the consent decree would adversely\\naffect CBA rights. In particular, the district court directed the\\nLodge to explain whether ¶ 687 of the draft consent decree\\nameliorated its concerns. On August 16, 2018, after receiving\\nthe supplemental briefing, the court denied the motion to in-\\ntervene as untimely. The Lodge appealed.\\n While the Lodge’s appeal has been pending, the district\\ncourt’s consideration of the draft consent decree has contin-\\nued. The Lodge moved to stay review of the consent decree\\nduring the pendency of its appeal, but the district court has\\nnot yet ruled on that motion. The district court held the fair-\\nness hearing on October 24 and 25, 2018. Prior to that hearing,\\nthe district court received hundreds of written comments, in-\\ncluding one from the Lodge. Given the level of interest, the\\ndistrict court limited participation in the fairness hearing to a\\nrandomly selected group of applicants, each of which spoke\\nfor five minutes. The record is unclear whether any Lodge\\nmembers received an opportunity to speak at the fairness\\nhearing. But, in the weeks since the hearing, the Lodge has\\nsubmitted numerous supplemental comments from its mem-\\nbers.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n Because denial of a motion to intervene essentially ends\\nthe litigation for the movant, such orders are final and appeal-\\nable. Reich v. ABC/York-Estes Corp., 64 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 7\\n\\n1995). The Lodge sought to intervene as of right, meaning the\\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) ap-\\nply: “(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the sub-\\nject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a practi-\\ncal matter, of that interest by the disposition of the action; and\\n(4) lack of adequate representation of the interest by the exist-\\ning parties to the action.” Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 346 (7th\\nCir. 1994) (quoting Southmark Corp. v. Cagan, 950 F.2d 416, 418\\n(7th Cir. 1991)). “A motion to intervene as a matter of right,\\nmoreover, should not be dismissed unless it appears to a cer-\\ntainty that the intervenor is not entitled to relief under any set\\nof facts which could be proved under the complaint.” Reich,\\n64 F.3d at 321 (quoting Lake Investors Dev. Group v. Egidi Dev.\\nGroup, 715 F.2d 1256, 1258 (7th Cir. 1983)). “[W]e must accept\\nas true the non-conclusory allegations of the motion.” Id. The\\ndistrict court found that the Lodge’s motion satisfied the final\\nthree requirements but denied the motion to intervene after\\nconcluding it was untimely. For that reason, we focus solely\\non the timeliness requirement.\\n “We look to four factors to determine whether a motion is\\ntimely: ‘(1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should\\nhave known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused\\nto the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the in-\\ntervenor if the motion is denied; (4) any other unusual circum-\\nstances.’” Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719\\nF.3d 785, 797–98 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sokaogon Chippewa\\nCmty. v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2000)). When the\\ndistrict court denies a motion for intervention as untimely, we\\nreview for abuse of discretion. Id.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2805\\n\\n A. Knowledge of Interest\\n The district court found that the Lodge should have\\nknown of its interest in the suit from the time the State filed\\nsuit. Because nine months passed before the Lodge sought to\\nintervene, the motion was untimely. Now, the Lodge argues\\nthat the district court erred because it did not learn its inter-\\nests might be impaired until “after the Lodge was shut out of\\nsettlement discussions and the Lodge had received infor-\\nmation from confidential sources that its contractual rights\\nwould be impaired.” (Appellant’s Br. at 24.)\\n “A prospective intervenor must move promptly to inter-\\nvene as soon as it knows or has reason to know that its inter-\\nests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litiga-\\ntion.” Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701\\n(7th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Sokaogon Chippewa,\\n214 F.3d at 949 (“As soon as a prospective intervenor knows\\nor has reason to know that his interests might be adversely af-\\nfected by the outcome of the litigation he must move\\npromptly to intervene.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added);\\nReich, 64 F.3d at 321 (“[W]e determine timeliness from the\\ntime the potential intervenors learn that their interest might be\\nimpaired.”) (emphasis added); City of Bloomington, Ind. v.\\nWestinghouse Elec. Corp., 824 F.2d 531, 535 (7th Cir. 1987) (find-\\ning a motion to intervene untimely because the movant “had\\nknowledge that its interests could be affected more than 11\\nmonths prior to the time it sought intervention”). Thus, we\\nmeasure from when the applicant has reason to know its in-\\nterests might be adversely affected, not from when it knows\\nfor certain that they will be.\\n The Lodge does not dispute that, immediately after the\\nState filed the lawsuit, it publicly opposed any consent decree.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 9\\n\\nIn fact, Lodge President Graham asserted in his September\\n2017 newsletter article that a consent decree “could seriously\\nthreaten ... collective bargaining rights.” (R. 73-1 at 13.) The\\nconclusion that the City, State, and Lodge do not share inter-\\nests is hardly remarkable. The Lodge’s very existence is\\nrooted in the competing interests between its members and\\nthe City. And the complaint emphasized the need for in-\\ncreased accountability and other significant reforms which\\nwould inevitably impact police officer interests. Thus, the\\nLodge waited nine months from the time it became clear that\\nthe lawsuit might affect its interests. The Lodge’s delay ren-\\nders the motion untimely. See Westinghouse, 824 F.2d at 535\\n(“[A]n examination of the initial factor in our analysis, the\\nlength of time the prospective intervenor knew or reasonably\\nshould have known of its interest before it petitioned to inter-\\nvene (11 months), clearly establishes that [the] motion to in-\\ntervene was untimely.”).\\n The Lodge argues that the timeliness inquiry should in-\\nstead run from the time it determined that the State was not\\nprotecting its interests. Specifically, the Lodge contends that\\nit reasonably relied on the State’s assurances that it was pro-\\ntecting the Lodge’s interests.\\n The cases the Lodge relies on offer it no aid. In several\\nprior cases, we have indicated that intervention may be timely\\nwhere the movant promptly seeks intervention upon learning\\nthat a party is not representing its interests. See Reich, 64 F.3d\\nat 321–22 (reversing denial of the motion to intervene because\\nthe movants “reasonably believed their employer was repre-\\nsenting their interests and, considering the believed adequacy\\nof representation, could not have legitimately petitioned to in-\\ntervene”); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminium, 25 F.3d\\n\\f10 No. 18-2805\\n\\n1174, 1183 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[W]here a party induces an appli-\\ncant to refrain from intervening and there is reasonable reli-\\nance, the applicantʹs motion should not fail on timeliness\\ngrounds.”); United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1256, 1263\\n(7th Cir. 1989) (“[W]hen a federal judicial decree unexpect-\\nedly impairs settled expectations, and does so on what might\\nappear to be arbitrary and discriminatory grounds, the judge\\nis obliged to listen to the victims of the decree when they\\nmake prompt application to intervene.”); Sokaogon, 214 F.3d\\nat 949 (characterizing City of Chicago as a case “where the\\nwhite female police officers who wanted to intervene could\\nnot have anticipated that the new procedures would discrim-\\ninate against them”).\\n These are all cases where the intervenor could not have\\nreasonably anticipated that its interests were at issue or un-\\nrepresented until immediately prior to the attempted inter-\\nvention. But where the intervenor “has known all along that\\nits interests are directly pitted against” those of the parties,\\nthen the mere fact that the precise outcome of the litigation\\nwas unexpected does not restart the timeliness analysis.\\nSokaogon, 214 F.3d at 950. Reich, City of Chicago, and Alcan sup-\\nport affirmance because the Lodge has not shown that it rea-\\nsonably believed that its interests were not at issue or pro-\\ntected, much less that those interests were then unexpectedly\\nimpaired.\\n The Lodge emphasizes that State’s representatives repeat-\\nedly assured them that the consent decree would not impact\\nCBA rights. But the very fact that the Lodge and State were\\ndiscussing the need for “carve-out” language makes clear that\\nboth anticipated that the consent decree would address mat-\\nters which arguably fell under the purview of the CBA. The\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 11\\n\\nState also refused to provide copies of the draft proposals the\\nState and City were exchanging. And the State and City ex-\\ncluded the Lodge from the settlement conferences with the\\ndistrict court, despite the Lodge showing up and asking to be\\nadmitted. Thus, there were many indicators that the Lodge’s\\ninterests were “directly pitted” against the State’s and City’s.\\n And, more importantly, the Lodge does not identify an\\nunexpected development which would excuse its delay. The\\nmotion for intervention cited the community group recom-\\nmendations as a threat, but those recommendations were\\nnonbinding. The motion also asserted that the injunctive relief\\nrequested in the August 2017 complaint would impair CBA\\nrights. But that argument simply underscores the Lodge’s\\nnine-month delay. In fact, in the subsequent motion to hold\\nproceedings in abeyance, the Lodge pointed to the Depart-\\nment of Justice’s January 2017 report as the reason it believed\\nits rights were at issue. We do not dispute that the Lodge\\ncould have sought intervention by relying on the complaint\\nand report. But the Lodge’s reliance on those documents\\ndemonstrates that the justification for intervention did not ap-\\npreciably change between August 2017 and June 2018.\\n Even the Lodge’s ex post reason for intervention (infor-\\nmation from confidential sources) suffers from this flaw. Re-\\nmember that, until July 2018, the Lodge had not received any\\nconsent decree draft language or been permitted to partici-\\npate directly in settlement negotiations. In May 2018, confi-\\ndential sources allegedly told the Lodge that “there were con-\\nsent decree provisions that would conflict with the provisions\\nof the collective bargaining agreement.” (R. 81-4 at 8–9). But\\nthose sources did not provide copies of those provisions\\n(much less copies of any carve-out language). Based on this\\n\\f12 No. 18-2805\\n\\ninformation, the Lodge determined that the consent decree\\nmight impact its interests. But the Lodge never identifies the\\nspecific information that these sources provided which the\\nLodge could not have previously intuited from the complaint\\nor discussions with the State. For these reasons, the district\\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in determining that the\\nLodge had notice of its interest beginning in August 2017.\\n B. Prejudice to the State and City\\n We next consider “the prejudice caused to the original par-\\nties by the delay.” Grochocinski, 719 F.3d at 797–98. The preju-\\ndice here is manifest. “Once parties have invested time and\\neffort into settling a case it would be prejudicial to allow in-\\ntervention.” Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir.\\n1991). That is particularly true when the settlement negotia-\\ntions were complex and well-publicized, as was the case here.\\nSee id.; see also City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 536. The Lodge\\nargues that the prejudice caused by its delay was minimal be-\\ncause it only waited several weeks from the time it deter-\\nmined its interests were at stake before filing its motion. But\\nif the Lodge’s delay began when the State filed the com-\\nplaint—as the district court properly calculated—then the\\nprejudice becomes significant. The district court did not err in\\ndetermining that intervention would cause prejudice.\\n C. Prejudice to the Lodge\\n The Lodge next argues that the district court erred in find-\\ning that the potential for prejudice to the Lodge was insuffi-\\ncient to mandate intervention. When the district court\\nproperly denies a motion to intervene, the applicants cannot\\n“attack the fairness of [a] consent decree because they are not\\nparties to the agreement.” B.H. by Pierce v. Murphy, 984 F.2d\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 13\\n\\n196, 199 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting City of Chicago, 908 F.2d at\\n200)). But the inability to appeal the entry of a consent decree\\ndoes not always mandate intervention. Rather, when the in-\\nterested party can adequately convey its concerns to the dis-\\ntrict court at the fairness hearing, prejudice is often minimal.\\nSee City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 537 (“Because [the pro-\\nposed intervenor] has already had an opportunity to present\\nits views to the district court, it would suffer little prejudice if\\nit were denied permission to intervene at this late stage in the\\nproceedings.”). The Lodge has enjoyed repeated (and contin-\\nuing) opportunities to do so.\\n The Lodge believes the draft consent decree will impair\\nCBA rights and displace protections provided by Illinois stat-\\nutes. The district court found that there was “some evidence\\nthat parts of the current draft consent decree may conflict with\\nthe CBA, the [Illinois Public Labor Relations Act], or other\\nstate laws.” (R. 88 at 17.) For the purposes of this opinion, we\\nwill assume that certain provisions of the draft consent decree\\nconflict—on their face—with the CBA and Illinois law.\\n Notwithstanding that potential for conflict, the Lodge’s\\nrights are protected. We begin with the carve-out language in-\\ncluded in the decree. That provision expressly confirms that\\n“[n]othing in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as obli-\\ngating the City or the Unions to violate … the terms of the\\nCBAs … with respect to the subject of wages, hours, and terms\\nand conditions of employment unless such terms violate the\\nU.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy.” (R. 81-2 at\\n217.) The Lodge argues that this provision is “wholly different\\nfrom a ‘shall not conflict with’ prohibition for the City and the\\n[State] to impinge upon the CBA.” (Appellant’s Br. at 33.) The\\nlanguage speaks for itself. Read as a whole, ¶ 687 makes clear\\n\\f14 No. 18-2805\\n\\nthat the parties do not intend for the consent decree to be in-\\nterpreted as impairing CBA rights.\\n The Lodge also argues that the exception in ¶ 687, indicat-\\ning that the decree may displace CBA provisions if they “vio-\\nlate the U.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy,” swal-\\nlows the rule. “Public policy” is undefined, and so there is ar-\\nguably ambiguity regarding what triggers that exception.\\n But, as the district court recognized, existing law already\\nprovides protections for the Lodge. “Before entering a con-\\nsent decree the judge must satisfy himself that the decree is\\nconsistent with the Constitution and laws, does not under-\\nmine the rightful interests of third parties, and is an appropri-\\nate commitment of the court’s limited resources.” Kasper v. Bd.\\nof Election Comm’rs of the City of Chicago, 814 F.2d 332, 338 (7th\\nCir. 1987). Similarly, consent decrees “may not alter collective\\nbargaining agreements without the union’s assent.” People\\nWho Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d\\n1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1992). “Neither may litigants agree to dis-\\nregard valid state laws.” Id. In other words, because “[c]on-\\nsent decrees are fundamentally contracts,” the parties to those\\ndecrees “‘may not impose duties or obligations on a third\\nparty, without that party’s agreement.’” Id. (quoting Firefight-\\ners Local 93 v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529 (1986)).\\n The parties negotiate and the district court considers the\\nconsent decree against this background law, which protects\\nthe Lodge even if ¶ 687 contains ambiguities. Simply put, a\\nconsent decree cannot accidentally eliminate the rights of\\nthird parties. And if the parties interpret the consent decree in\\na way which violates CBA rights, the Lodge can avail itself of\\nnormal remedies for CBA violations. See W.R. Grace & Co. v.\\nLocal Union 759, Intʹl Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum &\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 15\\n\\nPlastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 770 (1983) (affirming the\\nenforcement of an arbitration award for violating the CBA,\\neven though a settlement agreement required the company’s\\nviolation).\\n Admittedly, “[c]onsent decrees can alter the state law\\nrights of third parties.” Application of Cty. Collector of Cty. of\\nWinnebago, Ill., 96 F.3d 890, 901 (7th Cir. 1996). But that’s true\\n“only where the change is necessary to remedy a violation of\\nfederal law.” Id. (emphasis added); see also People Who Care,\\n961 F.2d at 1339 (“[B]efore altering the contractual (or state-\\nlaw) entitlements of third parties, the court must find the\\nchange necessary to an appropriate remedy for a legal\\nwrong.”). The district court has made no finding of necessity.\\nTo the contrary, the court emphasized that it “is obligated to\\nuphold the applicable law in resolving any real conflicts be-\\ntween the proposed decree and any existing or future con-\\ntracts.” Illinois v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-6260, 2018 WL\\n3920816, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018). The district court noted\\nthat consent decrees typically cannot subvert CBA rights, but\\nreminded the parties that “a CBA also must comply with fed-\\neral law.” Id. at *9.\\n Thus, the Lodge’s assertion of prejudice is largely specu-\\nlative. As things stand now, the consent decree cannot impair\\nthe CBA or state law rights enjoyed by Chicago police officers.\\nThat will change only if the district court concludes that fed-\\neral law requires the abrogation of those rights. Even then, the\\nabrogation must be narrowly tailored. We decline to speculate\\nwhether federal law will require such a remedy here. On the\\npresent facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in\\nfinding that intervention was unwarranted given the minimal\\nprejudice identified by the Lodge.\\n\\f16 No. 18-2805\\n\\n There is one final matter worth discussing. The district\\ncourt assured the Lodge that, “if the assumptions about the\\nfuture course of this litigation described above should turn\\nout to be radically incorrect, nothing in the rules or the case\\nlaw of which this court is aware would prevent re-examina-\\ntion of the matter of intervention.” City of Chicago, 2018 WL\\n3920816, at *11 n.5 (citing State v. Dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,\\n262 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir. 2001)). That is correct. The Lodge’s\\nallegations of prejudice are presently speculative, and the\\nother factors counsel against intervention. But if the Lodge’s\\nfears are substantiated, the balance of interests will shift.\\n D. Unusual Circumstances\\n We consider a final factor: whether any unusual circum-\\nstances mitigated or aggravated the delay. The district court\\ndid not consider this factor in a separate section. The Lodge\\nargues that the failure to consider all four factors mandates\\nreversal. (Appellant’s Br. at 15 (citing Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S.\\nForest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701 (7th Cir. 2003) (reversing\\nbecause the district court’s analysis of timeliness factors did\\nnot correspond to the four factors and because other aspects\\nof the reasoning were too conclusory for “us to identify the\\nreasoning behind the holdings”))). The Lodge only identifies\\none unusual circumstance here: the “reasonable reliance” ar-\\ngument addressed above. But the Lodge never squarely pre-\\nsented that legal theory to the district court. And the district\\ncourt considered the facts underlying the argument but found\\nthem unpersuasive. See City of Chicago, 2018 WL 3920816, at\\n*5–6. Our precedent merely requires that the district court\\nconsider the appropriate factors and discuss them in detail\\nsufficient for us to review on appeal. See Heartwood, 316 F.3d\\nat 701. When a party fails to specifically identify unusual\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 17\\n\\ncircumstances, the district court does not err in focusing on\\nthe disputed factors.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Lodge knew from the filing of the complaint that the\\nconsent decree might affect its interests. Indeed, the Lodge\\ntacitly admitted this when it relied on allegations in the com-\\nplaint—including reports from 2016 and 2017—in arguing to\\nthe district court that intervention was necessary. And setting\\nthe delay aside, the Lodge’s assertions of prejudice are pres-\\nently unsubstantiated. Existing law provides significant safe-\\nguards for the Lodge’s interests. If those protections prove in-\\nsufficient, then a renewed motion for intervention might be\\nappropriate. But on the facts as they currently stand, the dis-\\ntrict court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Lodge’s\\nmotion untimely.\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the\\nmotion for intervention.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355550/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578297/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: STATE of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee, Appeal Of: Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, Proposed Intervenor.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2805\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\nCITY OF CHICAGO,\n Defendant-Appellee,\nAPPEAL OF:\n FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7,\n Proposed Intervenor.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17-cv-6260 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. On August 29, 2017, the State of Illi-\nnois filed suit in federal court against the City of Chicago, al-\nleging that the Chicago Police Department’s use-of-force pol-\nicies and practices violate the federal constitution and Illinois\nlaw. Two days later, the parties moved to stay the proceedings\n\f2 No. 18-2805\n\nwhile they negotiated a consent decree. Almost immediately\nafter the State filed the complaint, the Fraternal Order of Po-\nlice, Lodge No. 7, publicly indicated its opposition to any con-\nsent decree, citing fears that the decree might impair its col-\nlective bargaining rights. For months, the Lodge monitored\nthe ongoing negotiations and met informally with the State’s\nrepresentatives. But the Lodge waited until June 6, 2018, to file\na motion to intervene in the suit. The district court denied the\nmotion to intervene as untimely. Because the Lodge knew\nfrom the beginning that a consent decree might impact its in-\nterests but delayed its motion for nearly a year, and because\nits allegations of prejudice are speculative, we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In April 2016, the Chicago Police Accountability Task\nForce issued a report finding that the Chicago Police Depart-\nment’s “response to violence is not sufficiently imbued with\nConstitutional policing tactics.” (R. 1-1 at 14.) In January 2017,\nthe United States Department of Justice released a report con-\ncluding that the Chicago Police Department exhibits a pattern\nor practice of the unconstitutional use of force. The report\nfound that Chicago’s inadequate accountability mechanisms\nare a significant contributor to the repeated constitutional vi-\nolations. The Department of Justice suggested that effective\nreform was unlikely without “[a] court-ordered, over-arching\nplan … that is overseen by a federal judge.” (Id. at 211.)\n On August 29, 2017, the State of Illinois filed suit against\nthe City of Chicago, alleging that the City’s policing practices\ninvolve the repeated use of excessive force. Two days later,\nthe parties moved to stay proceedings while they engaged in\nconsent decree negotiations. The district court granted that\nmotion.\n\fNo. 18-2805 3\n\n Immediately after the State filed suit, the Lodge publicly\nexpressed its opposition to any consent decree. In a news ar-\nticle published the evening of August 29, 2017, the Lodge’s\npresident, Kevin Graham, described a consent decree as a “a\npotential catastrophe for Chicago.” (R. 73 at 4 & n.1.) Mr. Gra-\nham elaborated on his opposition to a consent decree in the\nLodge’s September 2017 newsletter. He voiced the fear that a\nconsent decree might “seriously threaten our collective bar-\ngaining rights” and assured the Lodge that no one in his ad-\nministration believed that a consent decree was “necessary.”\n(R. 73-1 at 13.)\n Despite these public concerns over the suit’s potential im-\npact on collective bargaining rights, the Lodge did not seek to\nintervene at that time. Instead, during the subsequent months\nof negotiation between the State and City, the Lodge repeat-\nedly met separately with the State. At those meetings, the\nLodge expressed its concern that the inchoate consent decree\nmight conflict with provisions of the Collective Bargaining\nAgreement (“CBA”) or with Illinois statutes which protect po-\nlice officers. The State told the Lodge that it did not intend to\nintrude into matters of police officer discipline or other “core\nmandatory matters.” (R. 81-4 at 6.)\n To that end, and to avoid the need for the Lodge to inter-\nvene, the State and Lodge focused on creating “carve-out”\nlanguage that would ensure the consent decree left CBA\nrights intact. During these informal discussions, which began\nin the fall of 2017 and continued well into the spring of 2018,\nthe State often assured the Lodge that it was working with the\nCity to avoid any impact on CBA rights. The State never pro-\nvided the Lodge with copies of the proposed consent decree\nor with finalized carve-out language. Nevertheless, the State’s\n\f4 No. 18-2805\n\nrepresentative, Gary Caplan, assured the Lodge that the draft\nconsent decree did not conflict with the CBA and that, if any\nconsent decree provisions did conflict, the CBA would con-\ntrol.\n Between March 21, 2018, and May 25, 2018, the district\ncourt met four times with the parties to discuss the consent\ndecree negotiations. On two of those occasions, Lodge repre-\nsentatives appeared at the courtroom and requested permis-\nsion to attend the session. Both times, the City and State re-\nfused to consent to the request.\n On June 6, 2018, the Lodge moved to intervene. The Lodge\nhas offered a variety of explanations for its decision to seek\nintervention. In the motion to intervene, the Lodge attributed\nthe motion to its discovery that, on May 15, 2018, a number of\ncommunity groups “published and undoubtedly submitted\nto the [State] a report that contains recommendations for the\nconsent decree.” (R. 51 at 5.) The Lodge emphasized that the\nCBA “contains provisions addressing a number of the sub-\njects raised in the complaint filed by the Office of the Illinois\nAttorney General in this case.” (Id. at 6.) Because many of the\nrecommendations made by the community groups would re-\nquire “substantive modifications” to practices or activities\ncovered by the CBA, the Lodge believed that intervention was\nnecessary. The Lodge also argued that the complaint—filed\nnine months earlier—sought injunctive relief that would con-\nflict with the CBA. Thus, at the time, the Lodge did not cite its\nexclusion from negotiations as a reason for intervention. Like-\nwise, the Lodge did not move to intervene due to surprise lan-\nguage in the consent decree (because the Lodge had not yet\nreceived a copy of the draft consent decree).\n\fNo. 18-2805 5\n\n In early July 2018, the Lodge filed a motion to hold pro-\nceedings in abeyance while the court considered the motion\nto intervene. In that motion, the Lodge argued that it had\n“reason to believe that the consent decree will impact the col-\nlective bargaining agreement,” but the Lodge based that be-\nlief “on the January 2017 Department of Justice report … and\nthe representations in the [August 31, 2017] motion to stay\nconcerning the failure of the City to administer effective po-\nlice discipline.” (R. 65 at 2.)\n On July 27, 2018, the State and City made the proposed\nconsent decree public. The draft includes numerous provi-\nsions which the Lodge believes conflict with the disciplinary\nand investigative provisions of the CBA. The proposed con-\nsent decree also contains a paragraph addressing conflicts be-\ntween the consent decree and CBAs:\n 687. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to\n (a) alter any of the CBAs between the City and the\n Unions; or (b) impair or conflict with the collective\n bargaining rights of employees in those units under\n the IPLRA. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be\n interpreted as obligating the City or the Unions to\n violate (i) the terms of the CBAs, including any suc-\n cessor CBAs resulting from the negotiation process\n … mandated by the IPLRA with respect to the sub-\n ject of wages, hours and terms and conditions of em-\n ployment unless such terms violate the U.S. Consti-\n tution, Illinois law, or public policy, or (ii) any bar-\n gaining obligations under the IPLRA, and/or waive\n any rights or obligations thereunder. In negotiating\n Successor CBAs … , the City shall use its best efforts\n to secure modifications to the CBAs consistent with\n the terms of this Consent Decree, or to the extent\n\f6 No. 18-2805\n\n necessary to provide for the effective implementa-\n tion of the provisions of this Consent Decree.\n\n(R. 81-2 at 217.)\n On August 8, 2018, the district court directed the State,\nCity, and Lodge to submit supplemental briefs addressing the\nLodge’s contention that the consent decree would adversely\naffect CBA rights. In particular, the district court directed the\nLodge to explain whether ¶ 687 of the draft consent decree\nameliorated its concerns. On August 16, 2018, after receiving\nthe supplemental briefing, the court denied the motion to in-\ntervene as untimely. The Lodge appealed.\n While the Lodge’s appeal has been pending, the district\ncourt’s consideration of the draft consent decree has contin-\nued. The Lodge moved to stay review of the consent decree\nduring the pendency of its appeal, but the district court has\nnot yet ruled on that motion. The district court held the fair-\nness hearing on October 24 and 25, 2018. Prior to that hearing,\nthe district court received hundreds of written comments, in-\ncluding one from the Lodge. Given the level of interest, the\ndistrict court limited participation in the fairness hearing to a\nrandomly selected group of applicants, each of which spoke\nfor five minutes. The record is unclear whether any Lodge\nmembers received an opportunity to speak at the fairness\nhearing. But, in the weeks since the hearing, the Lodge has\nsubmitted numerous supplemental comments from its mem-\nbers.\n II. ANALYSIS\n Because denial of a motion to intervene essentially ends\nthe litigation for the movant, such orders are final and appeal-\nable. Reich v. ABC/York-Estes Corp., 64 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir.\n\fNo. 18-2805 7\n\n1995). The Lodge sought to intervene as of right, meaning the\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) ap-\nply: “(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the sub-\nject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a practi-\ncal matter, of that interest by the disposition of the action; and\n(4) lack of adequate representation of the interest by the exist-\ning parties to the action.” Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 346 (7th\nCir. 1994) (quoting Southmark Corp. v. Cagan, 950 F.2d 416, 418\n(7th Cir. 1991)). “A motion to intervene as a matter of right,\nmoreover, should not be dismissed unless it appears to a cer-\ntainty that the intervenor is not entitled to relief under any set\nof facts which could be proved under the complaint.” Reich,\n64 F.3d at 321 (quoting Lake Investors Dev. Group v. Egidi Dev.\nGroup, 715 F.2d 1256, 1258 (7th Cir. 1983)). “[W]e must accept\nas true the non-conclusory allegations of the motion.” Id. The\ndistrict court found that the Lodge’s motion satisfied the final\nthree requirements but denied the motion to intervene after\nconcluding it was untimely. For that reason, we focus solely\non the timeliness requirement.\n “We look to four factors to determine whether a motion is\ntimely: ‘(1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should\nhave known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused\nto the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the in-\ntervenor if the motion is denied; (4) any other unusual circum-\nstances.’” Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719\nF.3d 785, 797–98 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sokaogon Chippewa\nCmty. v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2000)). When the\ndistrict court denies a motion for intervention as untimely, we\nreview for abuse of discretion. Id.\n\f8 No. 18-2805\n\n A. Knowledge of Interest\n The district court found that the Lodge should have\nknown of its interest in the suit from the time the State filed\nsuit. Because nine months passed before the Lodge sought to\nintervene, the motion was untimely. Now, the Lodge argues\nthat the district court erred because it did not learn its inter-\nests might be impaired until “after the Lodge was shut out of\nsettlement discussions and the Lodge had received infor-\nmation from confidential sources that its contractual rights\nwould be impaired.” (Appellant’s Br. at 24.)\n “A prospective intervenor must move promptly to inter-\nvene as soon as it knows or has reason to know that its inter-\nests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litiga-\ntion.” Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701\n(7th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Sokaogon Chippewa,\n214 F.3d at 949 (“As soon as a prospective intervenor knows\nor has reason to know that his interests might be adversely af-\nfected by the outcome of the litigation he must move\npromptly to intervene.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added);\nReich, 64 F.3d at 321 (“[W]e determine timeliness from the\ntime the potential intervenors learn that their interest might be\nimpaired.”) (emphasis added); City of Bloomington, Ind. v.\nWestinghouse Elec. Corp., 824 F.2d 531, 535 (7th Cir. 1987) (find-\ning a motion to intervene untimely because the movant “had\nknowledge that its interests could be affected more than 11\nmonths prior to the time it sought intervention”). Thus, we\nmeasure from when the applicant has reason to know its in-\nterests might be adversely affected, not from when it knows\nfor certain that they will be.\n The Lodge does not dispute that, immediately after the\nState filed the lawsuit, it publicly opposed any consent decree.\n\fNo. 18-2805 9\n\nIn fact, Lodge President Graham asserted in his September\n2017 newsletter article that a consent decree “could seriously\nthreaten ... collective bargaining rights.” (R. 73-1 at 13.) The\nconclusion that the City, State, and Lodge do not share inter-\nests is hardly remarkable. The Lodge’s very existence is\nrooted in the competing interests between its members and\nthe City. And the complaint emphasized the need for in-\ncreased accountability and other significant reforms which\nwould inevitably impact police officer interests. Thus, the\nLodge waited nine months from the time it became clear that\nthe lawsuit might affect its interests. The Lodge’s delay ren-\nders the motion untimely. See Westinghouse, 824 F.2d at 535\n(“[A]n examination of the initial factor in our analysis, the\nlength of time the prospective intervenor knew or reasonably\nshould have known of its interest before it petitioned to inter-\nvene (11 months), clearly establishes that [the] motion to in-\ntervene was untimely.”).\n The Lodge argues that the timeliness inquiry should in-\nstead run from the time it determined that the State was not\nprotecting its interests. Specifically, the Lodge contends that\nit reasonably relied on the State’s assurances that it was pro-\ntecting the Lodge’s interests.\n The cases the Lodge relies on offer it no aid. In several\nprior cases, we have indicated that intervention may be timely\nwhere the movant promptly seeks intervention upon learning\nthat a party is not representing its interests. See Reich, 64 F.3d\nat 321–22 (reversing denial of the motion to intervene because\nthe movants “reasonably believed their employer was repre-\nsenting their interests and, considering the believed adequacy\nof representation, could not have legitimately petitioned to in-\ntervene”); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminium, 25 F.3d\n\f10 No. 18-2805\n\n1174, 1183 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[W]here a party induces an appli-\ncant to refrain from intervening and there is reasonable reli-\nance, the applicantʹs motion should not fail on timeliness\ngrounds.”); United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1256, 1263\n(7th Cir. 1989) (“[W]hen a federal judicial decree unexpect-\nedly impairs settled expectations, and does so on what might\nappear to be arbitrary and discriminatory grounds, the judge\nis obliged to listen to the victims of the decree when they\nmake prompt application to intervene.”); Sokaogon, 214 F.3d\nat 949 (characterizing City of Chicago as a case “where the\nwhite female police officers who wanted to intervene could\nnot have anticipated that the new procedures would discrim-\ninate against them”).\n These are all cases where the intervenor could not have\nreasonably anticipated that its interests were at issue or un-\nrepresented until immediately prior to the attempted inter-\nvention. But where the intervenor “has known all along that\nits interests are directly pitted against” those of the parties,\nthen the mere fact that the precise outcome of the litigation\nwas unexpected does not restart the timeliness analysis.\nSokaogon, 214 F.3d at 950. Reich, City of Chicago, and Alcan sup-\nport affirmance because the Lodge has not shown that it rea-\nsonably believed that its interests were not at issue or pro-\ntected, much less that those interests were then unexpectedly\nimpaired.\n The Lodge emphasizes that State’s representatives repeat-\nedly assured them that the consent decree would not impact\nCBA rights. But the very fact that the Lodge and State were\ndiscussing the need for “carve-out” language makes clear that\nboth anticipated that the consent decree would address mat-\nters which arguably fell under the purview of the CBA. The\n\fNo. 18-2805 11\n\nState also refused to provide copies of the draft proposals the\nState and City were exchanging. And the State and City ex-\ncluded the Lodge from the settlement conferences with the\ndistrict court, despite the Lodge showing up and asking to be\nadmitted. Thus, there were many indicators that the Lodge’s\ninterests were “directly pitted” against the State’s and City’s.\n And, more importantly, the Lodge does not identify an\nunexpected development which would excuse its delay. The\nmotion for intervention cited the community group recom-\nmendations as a threat, but those recommendations were\nnonbinding. The motion also asserted that the injunctive relief\nrequested in the August 2017 complaint would impair CBA\nrights. But that argument simply underscores the Lodge’s\nnine-month delay. In fact, in the subsequent motion to hold\nproceedings in abeyance, the Lodge pointed to the Depart-\nment of Justice’s January 2017 report as the reason it believed\nits rights were at issue. We do not dispute that the Lodge\ncould have sought intervention by relying on the complaint\nand report. But the Lodge’s reliance on those documents\ndemonstrates that the justification for intervention did not ap-\npreciably change between August 2017 and June 2018.\n Even the Lodge’s ex post reason for intervention (infor-\nmation from confidential sources) suffers from this flaw. Re-\nmember that, until July 2018, the Lodge had not received any\nconsent decree draft language or been permitted to partici-\npate directly in settlement negotiations. In May 2018, confi-\ndential sources allegedly told the Lodge that “there were con-\nsent decree provisions that would conflict with the provisions\nof the collective bargaining agreement.” (R. 81-4 at 8–9). But\nthose sources did not provide copies of those provisions\n(much less copies of any carve-out language). Based on this\n\f12 No. 18-2805\n\ninformation, the Lodge determined that the consent decree\nmight impact its interests. But the Lodge never identifies the\nspecific information that these sources provided which the\nLodge could not have previously intuited from the complaint\nor discussions with the State. For these reasons, the district\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in determining that the\nLodge had notice of its interest beginning in August 2017.\n B. Prejudice to the State and City\n We next consider “the prejudice caused to the original par-\nties by the delay.” Grochocinski, 719 F.3d at 797–98. The preju-\ndice here is manifest. “Once parties have invested time and\neffort into settling a case it would be prejudicial to allow in-\ntervention.” Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir.\n1991). That is particularly true when the settlement negotia-\ntions were complex and well-publicized, as was the case here.\nSee id.; see also City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 536. The Lodge\nargues that the prejudice caused by its delay was minimal be-\ncause it only waited several weeks from the time it deter-\nmined its interests were at stake before filing its motion. But\nif the Lodge’s delay began when the State filed the com-\nplaint—as the district court properly calculated—then the\nprejudice becomes significant. The district court did not err in\ndetermining that intervention would cause prejudice.\n C. Prejudice to the Lodge\n The Lodge next argues that the district court erred in find-\ning that the potential for prejudice to the Lodge was insuffi-\ncient to mandate intervention. When the district court\nproperly denies a motion to intervene, the applicants cannot\n“attack the fairness of [a] consent decree because they are not\nparties to the agreement.” B.H. by Pierce v. Murphy, 984 F.2d\n\fNo. 18-2805 13\n\n196, 199 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting City of Chicago, 908 F.2d at\n200)). But the inability to appeal the entry of a consent decree\ndoes not always mandate intervention. Rather, when the in-\nterested party can adequately convey its concerns to the dis-\ntrict court at the fairness hearing, prejudice is often minimal.\nSee City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 537 (“Because [the pro-\nposed intervenor] has already had an opportunity to present\nits views to the district court, it would suffer little prejudice if\nit were denied permission to intervene at this late stage in the\nproceedings.”). The Lodge has enjoyed repeated (and contin-\nuing) opportunities to do so.\n The Lodge believes the draft consent decree will impair\nCBA rights and displace protections provided by Illinois stat-\nutes. The district court found that there was “some evidence\nthat parts of the current draft consent decree may conflict with\nthe CBA, the [Illinois Public Labor Relations Act], or other\nstate laws.” (R. 88 at 17.) For the purposes of this opinion, we\nwill assume that certain provisions of the draft consent decree\nconflict—on their face—with the CBA and Illinois law.\n Notwithstanding that potential for conflict, the Lodge’s\nrights are protected. We begin with the carve-out language in-\ncluded in the decree. That provision expressly confirms that\n“[n]othing in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as obli-\ngating the City or the Unions to violate … the terms of the\nCBAs … with respect to the subject of wages, hours, and terms\nand conditions of employment unless such terms violate the\nU.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy.” (R. 81-2 at\n217.) The Lodge argues that this provision is “wholly different\nfrom a ‘shall not conflict with’ prohibition for the City and the\n[State] to impinge upon the CBA.” (Appellant’s Br. at 33.) The\nlanguage speaks for itself. Read as a whole, ¶ 687 makes clear\n\f14 No. 18-2805\n\nthat the parties do not intend for the consent decree to be in-\nterpreted as impairing CBA rights.\n The Lodge also argues that the exception in ¶ 687, indicat-\ning that the decree may displace CBA provisions if they “vio-\nlate the U.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy,” swal-\nlows the rule. “Public policy” is undefined, and so there is ar-\nguably ambiguity regarding what triggers that exception.\n But, as the district court recognized, existing law already\nprovides protections for the Lodge. “Before entering a con-\nsent decree the judge must satisfy himself that the decree is\nconsistent with the Constitution and laws, does not under-\nmine the rightful interests of third parties, and is an appropri-\nate commitment of the court’s limited resources.” Kasper v. Bd.\nof Election Comm’rs of the City of Chicago, 814 F.2d 332, 338 (7th\nCir. 1987). Similarly, consent decrees “may not alter collective\nbargaining agreements without the union’s assent.” People\nWho Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d\n1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1992). “Neither may litigants agree to dis-\nregard valid state laws.” Id. In other words, because “[c]on-\nsent decrees are fundamentally contracts,” the parties to those\ndecrees “‘may not impose duties or obligations on a third\nparty, without that party’s agreement.’” Id. (quoting Firefight-\ners Local 93 v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529 (1986)).\n The parties negotiate and the district court considers the\nconsent decree against this background law, which protects\nthe Lodge even if ¶ 687 contains ambiguities. Simply put, a\nconsent decree cannot accidentally eliminate the rights of\nthird parties. And if the parties interpret the consent decree in\na way which violates CBA rights, the Lodge can avail itself of\nnormal remedies for CBA violations. See W.R. Grace & Co. v.\nLocal Union 759, Intʹl Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum &\n\fNo. 18-2805 15\n\nPlastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 770 (1983) (affirming the\nenforcement of an arbitration award for violating the CBA,\neven though a settlement agreement required the company’s\nviolation).\n Admittedly, “[c]onsent decrees can alter the state law\nrights of third parties.” Application of Cty. Collector of Cty. of\nWinnebago, Ill., 96 F.3d 890, 901 (7th Cir. 1996). But that’s true\n“only where the change is necessary to remedy a violation of\nfederal law.” Id. (emphasis added); see also People Who Care,\n961 F.2d at 1339 (“[B]efore altering the contractual (or state-\nlaw) entitlements of third parties, the court must find the\nchange necessary to an appropriate remedy for a legal\nwrong.”). The district court has made no finding of necessity.\nTo the contrary, the court emphasized that it “is obligated to\nuphold the applicable law in resolving any real conflicts be-\ntween the proposed decree and any existing or future con-\ntracts.” Illinois v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-6260, 2018 WL\n3920816, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018). The district court noted\nthat consent decrees typically cannot subvert CBA rights, but\nreminded the parties that “a CBA also must comply with fed-\neral law.” Id. at *9.\n Thus, the Lodge’s assertion of prejudice is largely specu-\nlative. As things stand now, the consent decree cannot impair\nthe CBA or state law rights enjoyed by Chicago police officers.\nThat will change only if the district court concludes that fed-\neral law requires the abrogation of those rights. Even then, the\nabrogation must be narrowly tailored. We decline to speculate\nwhether federal law will require such a remedy here. On the\npresent facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in\nfinding that intervention was unwarranted given the minimal\nprejudice identified by the Lodge.\n\f16 No. 18-2805\n\n There is one final matter worth discussing. The district\ncourt assured the Lodge that, “if the assumptions about the\nfuture course of this litigation described above should turn\nout to be radically incorrect, nothing in the rules or the case\nlaw of which this court is aware would prevent re-examina-\ntion of the matter of intervention.” City of Chicago, 2018 WL\n3920816, at *11 n.5 (citing State v. Dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,\n262 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir. 2001)). That is correct. The Lodge’s\nallegations of prejudice are presently speculative, and the\nother factors counsel against intervention. But if the Lodge’s\nfears are substantiated, the balance of interests will shift.\n D. Unusual Circumstances\n We consider a final factor: whether any unusual circum-\nstances mitigated or aggravated the delay. The district court\ndid not consider this factor in a separate section. The Lodge\nargues that the failure to consider all four factors mandates\nreversal. (Appellant’s Br. at 15 (citing Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S.\nForest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701 (7th Cir. 2003) (reversing\nbecause the district court’s analysis of timeliness factors did\nnot correspond to the four factors and because other aspects\nof the reasoning were too conclusory for “us to identify the\nreasoning behind the holdings”))). The Lodge only identifies\none unusual circumstance here: the “reasonable reliance” ar-\ngument addressed above. But the Lodge never squarely pre-\nsented that legal theory to the district court. And the district\ncourt considered the facts underlying the argument but found\nthem unpersuasive. See City of Chicago, 2018 WL 3920816, at\n*5–6. Our precedent merely requires that the district court\nconsider the appropriate factors and discuss them in detail\nsufficient for us to review on appeal. See Heartwood, 316 F.3d\nat 701. When a party fails to specifically identify unusual\n\fNo. 18-2805 17\n\ncircumstances, the district court does not err in focusing on\nthe disputed factors.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The Lodge knew from the filing of the complaint that the\nconsent decree might affect its interests. Indeed, the Lodge\ntacitly admitted this when it relied on allegations in the com-\nplaint—including reports from 2016 and 2017—in arguing to\nthe district court that intervention was necessary. And setting\nthe delay aside, the Lodge’s assertions of prejudice are pres-\nently unsubstantiated. Existing law provides significant safe-\nguards for the Lodge’s interests. If those protections prove in-\nsufficient, then a renewed motion for intervention might be\nappropriate. But on the facts as they currently stand, the dis-\ntrict court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Lodge’s\nmotion untimely.\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the\nmotion for intervention.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: STATE of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee, Appeal Of: Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, Proposed Intervenor.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2805\\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\nCITY OF CHICAGO,\\n Defendant-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF:\\n FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7,\\n Proposed Intervenor.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17-cv-6260 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. On August 29, 2017, the State of Illi-\\nnois filed suit in federal court against the City of Chicago, al-\\nleging that the Chicago Police Department’s use-of-force pol-\\nicies and practices violate the federal constitution and Illinois\\nlaw. Two days later, the parties moved to stay the proceedings\\n\\f2 No. 18-2805\\n\\nwhile they negotiated a consent decree. Almost immediately\\nafter the State filed the complaint, the Fraternal Order of Po-\\nlice, Lodge No. 7, publicly indicated its opposition to any con-\\nsent decree, citing fears that the decree might impair its col-\\nlective bargaining rights. For months, the Lodge monitored\\nthe ongoing negotiations and met informally with the State’s\\nrepresentatives. But the Lodge waited until June 6, 2018, to file\\na motion to intervene in the suit. The district court denied the\\nmotion to intervene as untimely. Because the Lodge knew\\nfrom the beginning that a consent decree might impact its in-\\nterests but delayed its motion for nearly a year, and because\\nits allegations of prejudice are speculative, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In April 2016, the Chicago Police Accountability Task\\nForce issued a report finding that the Chicago Police Depart-\\nment’s “response to violence is not sufficiently imbued with\\nConstitutional policing tactics.” (R. 1-1 at 14.) In January 2017,\\nthe United States Department of Justice released a report con-\\ncluding that the Chicago Police Department exhibits a pattern\\nor practice of the unconstitutional use of force. The report\\nfound that Chicago’s inadequate accountability mechanisms\\nare a significant contributor to the repeated constitutional vi-\\nolations. The Department of Justice suggested that effective\\nreform was unlikely without “[a] court-ordered, over-arching\\nplan … that is overseen by a federal judge.” (Id. at 211.)\\n On August 29, 2017, the State of Illinois filed suit against\\nthe City of Chicago, alleging that the City’s policing practices\\ninvolve the repeated use of excessive force. Two days later,\\nthe parties moved to stay proceedings while they engaged in\\nconsent decree negotiations. The district court granted that\\nmotion.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 3\\n\\n Immediately after the State filed suit, the Lodge publicly\\nexpressed its opposition to any consent decree. In a news ar-\\nticle published the evening of August 29, 2017, the Lodge’s\\npresident, Kevin Graham, described a consent decree as a “a\\npotential catastrophe for Chicago.” (R. 73 at 4 & n.1.) Mr. Gra-\\nham elaborated on his opposition to a consent decree in the\\nLodge’s September 2017 newsletter. He voiced the fear that a\\nconsent decree might “seriously threaten our collective bar-\\ngaining rights” and assured the Lodge that no one in his ad-\\nministration believed that a consent decree was “necessary.”\\n(R. 73-1 at 13.)\\n Despite these public concerns over the suit’s potential im-\\npact on collective bargaining rights, the Lodge did not seek to\\nintervene at that time. Instead, during the subsequent months\\nof negotiation between the State and City, the Lodge repeat-\\nedly met separately with the State. At those meetings, the\\nLodge expressed its concern that the inchoate consent decree\\nmight conflict with provisions of the Collective Bargaining\\nAgreement (“CBA”) or with Illinois statutes which protect po-\\nlice officers. The State told the Lodge that it did not intend to\\nintrude into matters of police officer discipline or other “core\\nmandatory matters.” (R. 81-4 at 6.)\\n To that end, and to avoid the need for the Lodge to inter-\\nvene, the State and Lodge focused on creating “carve-out”\\nlanguage that would ensure the consent decree left CBA\\nrights intact. During these informal discussions, which began\\nin the fall of 2017 and continued well into the spring of 2018,\\nthe State often assured the Lodge that it was working with the\\nCity to avoid any impact on CBA rights. The State never pro-\\nvided the Lodge with copies of the proposed consent decree\\nor with finalized carve-out language. Nevertheless, the State’s\\n\\f4 No. 18-2805\\n\\nrepresentative, Gary Caplan, assured the Lodge that the draft\\nconsent decree did not conflict with the CBA and that, if any\\nconsent decree provisions did conflict, the CBA would con-\\ntrol.\\n Between March 21, 2018, and May 25, 2018, the district\\ncourt met four times with the parties to discuss the consent\\ndecree negotiations. On two of those occasions, Lodge repre-\\nsentatives appeared at the courtroom and requested permis-\\nsion to attend the session. Both times, the City and State re-\\nfused to consent to the request.\\n On June 6, 2018, the Lodge moved to intervene. The Lodge\\nhas offered a variety of explanations for its decision to seek\\nintervention. In the motion to intervene, the Lodge attributed\\nthe motion to its discovery that, on May 15, 2018, a number of\\ncommunity groups “published and undoubtedly submitted\\nto the [State] a report that contains recommendations for the\\nconsent decree.” (R. 51 at 5.) The Lodge emphasized that the\\nCBA “contains provisions addressing a number of the sub-\\njects raised in the complaint filed by the Office of the Illinois\\nAttorney General in this case.” (Id. at 6.) Because many of the\\nrecommendations made by the community groups would re-\\nquire “substantive modifications” to practices or activities\\ncovered by the CBA, the Lodge believed that intervention was\\nnecessary. The Lodge also argued that the complaint—filed\\nnine months earlier—sought injunctive relief that would con-\\nflict with the CBA. Thus, at the time, the Lodge did not cite its\\nexclusion from negotiations as a reason for intervention. Like-\\nwise, the Lodge did not move to intervene due to surprise lan-\\nguage in the consent decree (because the Lodge had not yet\\nreceived a copy of the draft consent decree).\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 5\\n\\n In early July 2018, the Lodge filed a motion to hold pro-\\nceedings in abeyance while the court considered the motion\\nto intervene. In that motion, the Lodge argued that it had\\n“reason to believe that the consent decree will impact the col-\\nlective bargaining agreement,” but the Lodge based that be-\\nlief “on the January 2017 Department of Justice report … and\\nthe representations in the [August 31, 2017] motion to stay\\nconcerning the failure of the City to administer effective po-\\nlice discipline.” (R. 65 at 2.)\\n On July 27, 2018, the State and City made the proposed\\nconsent decree public. The draft includes numerous provi-\\nsions which the Lodge believes conflict with the disciplinary\\nand investigative provisions of the CBA. The proposed con-\\nsent decree also contains a paragraph addressing conflicts be-\\ntween the consent decree and CBAs:\\n 687. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to\\n (a) alter any of the CBAs between the City and the\\n Unions; or (b) impair or conflict with the collective\\n bargaining rights of employees in those units under\\n the IPLRA. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be\\n interpreted as obligating the City or the Unions to\\n violate (i) the terms of the CBAs, including any suc-\\n cessor CBAs resulting from the negotiation process\\n … mandated by the IPLRA with respect to the sub-\\n ject of wages, hours and terms and conditions of em-\\n ployment unless such terms violate the U.S. Consti-\\n tution, Illinois law, or public policy, or (ii) any bar-\\n gaining obligations under the IPLRA, and/or waive\\n any rights or obligations thereunder. In negotiating\\n Successor CBAs … , the City shall use its best efforts\\n to secure modifications to the CBAs consistent with\\n the terms of this Consent Decree, or to the extent\\n\\f6 No. 18-2805\\n\\n necessary to provide for the effective implementa-\\n tion of the provisions of this Consent Decree.\\n\\n(R. 81-2 at 217.)\\n On August 8, 2018, the district court directed the State,\\nCity, and Lodge to submit supplemental briefs addressing the\\nLodge’s contention that the consent decree would adversely\\naffect CBA rights. In particular, the district court directed the\\nLodge to explain whether ¶ 687 of the draft consent decree\\nameliorated its concerns. On August 16, 2018, after receiving\\nthe supplemental briefing, the court denied the motion to in-\\ntervene as untimely. The Lodge appealed.\\n While the Lodge’s appeal has been pending, the district\\ncourt’s consideration of the draft consent decree has contin-\\nued. The Lodge moved to stay review of the consent decree\\nduring the pendency of its appeal, but the district court has\\nnot yet ruled on that motion. The district court held the fair-\\nness hearing on October 24 and 25, 2018. Prior to that hearing,\\nthe district court received hundreds of written comments, in-\\ncluding one from the Lodge. Given the level of interest, the\\ndistrict court limited participation in the fairness hearing to a\\nrandomly selected group of applicants, each of which spoke\\nfor five minutes. The record is unclear whether any Lodge\\nmembers received an opportunity to speak at the fairness\\nhearing. But, in the weeks since the hearing, the Lodge has\\nsubmitted numerous supplemental comments from its mem-\\nbers.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n Because denial of a motion to intervene essentially ends\\nthe litigation for the movant, such orders are final and appeal-\\nable. Reich v. ABC/York-Estes Corp., 64 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 7\\n\\n1995). The Lodge sought to intervene as of right, meaning the\\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) ap-\\nply: “(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the sub-\\nject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a practi-\\ncal matter, of that interest by the disposition of the action; and\\n(4) lack of adequate representation of the interest by the exist-\\ning parties to the action.” Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 346 (7th\\nCir. 1994) (quoting Southmark Corp. v. Cagan, 950 F.2d 416, 418\\n(7th Cir. 1991)). “A motion to intervene as a matter of right,\\nmoreover, should not be dismissed unless it appears to a cer-\\ntainty that the intervenor is not entitled to relief under any set\\nof facts which could be proved under the complaint.” Reich,\\n64 F.3d at 321 (quoting Lake Investors Dev. Group v. Egidi Dev.\\nGroup, 715 F.2d 1256, 1258 (7th Cir. 1983)). “[W]e must accept\\nas true the non-conclusory allegations of the motion.” Id. The\\ndistrict court found that the Lodge’s motion satisfied the final\\nthree requirements but denied the motion to intervene after\\nconcluding it was untimely. For that reason, we focus solely\\non the timeliness requirement.\\n “We look to four factors to determine whether a motion is\\ntimely: ‘(1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should\\nhave known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused\\nto the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the in-\\ntervenor if the motion is denied; (4) any other unusual circum-\\nstances.’” Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719\\nF.3d 785, 797–98 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sokaogon Chippewa\\nCmty. v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2000)). When the\\ndistrict court denies a motion for intervention as untimely, we\\nreview for abuse of discretion. Id.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2805\\n\\n A. Knowledge of Interest\\n The district court found that the Lodge should have\\nknown of its interest in the suit from the time the State filed\\nsuit. Because nine months passed before the Lodge sought to\\nintervene, the motion was untimely. Now, the Lodge argues\\nthat the district court erred because it did not learn its inter-\\nests might be impaired until “after the Lodge was shut out of\\nsettlement discussions and the Lodge had received infor-\\nmation from confidential sources that its contractual rights\\nwould be impaired.” (Appellant’s Br. at 24.)\\n “A prospective intervenor must move promptly to inter-\\nvene as soon as it knows or has reason to know that its inter-\\nests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litiga-\\ntion.” Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701\\n(7th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Sokaogon Chippewa,\\n214 F.3d at 949 (“As soon as a prospective intervenor knows\\nor has reason to know that his interests might be adversely af-\\nfected by the outcome of the litigation he must move\\npromptly to intervene.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added);\\nReich, 64 F.3d at 321 (“[W]e determine timeliness from the\\ntime the potential intervenors learn that their interest might be\\nimpaired.”) (emphasis added); City of Bloomington, Ind. v.\\nWestinghouse Elec. Corp., 824 F.2d 531, 535 (7th Cir. 1987) (find-\\ning a motion to intervene untimely because the movant “had\\nknowledge that its interests could be affected more than 11\\nmonths prior to the time it sought intervention”). Thus, we\\nmeasure from when the applicant has reason to know its in-\\nterests might be adversely affected, not from when it knows\\nfor certain that they will be.\\n The Lodge does not dispute that, immediately after the\\nState filed the lawsuit, it publicly opposed any consent decree.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 9\\n\\nIn fact, Lodge President Graham asserted in his September\\n2017 newsletter article that a consent decree “could seriously\\nthreaten ... collective bargaining rights.” (R. 73-1 at 13.) The\\nconclusion that the City, State, and Lodge do not share inter-\\nests is hardly remarkable. The Lodge’s very existence is\\nrooted in the competing interests between its members and\\nthe City. And the complaint emphasized the need for in-\\ncreased accountability and other significant reforms which\\nwould inevitably impact police officer interests. Thus, the\\nLodge waited nine months from the time it became clear that\\nthe lawsuit might affect its interests. The Lodge’s delay ren-\\nders the motion untimely. See Westinghouse, 824 F.2d at 535\\n(“[A]n examination of the initial factor in our analysis, the\\nlength of time the prospective intervenor knew or reasonably\\nshould have known of its interest before it petitioned to inter-\\nvene (11 months), clearly establishes that [the] motion to in-\\ntervene was untimely.”).\\n The Lodge argues that the timeliness inquiry should in-\\nstead run from the time it determined that the State was not\\nprotecting its interests. Specifically, the Lodge contends that\\nit reasonably relied on the State’s assurances that it was pro-\\ntecting the Lodge’s interests.\\n The cases the Lodge relies on offer it no aid. In several\\nprior cases, we have indicated that intervention may be timely\\nwhere the movant promptly seeks intervention upon learning\\nthat a party is not representing its interests. See Reich, 64 F.3d\\nat 321–22 (reversing denial of the motion to intervene because\\nthe movants “reasonably believed their employer was repre-\\nsenting their interests and, considering the believed adequacy\\nof representation, could not have legitimately petitioned to in-\\ntervene”); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminium, 25 F.3d\\n\\f10 No. 18-2805\\n\\n1174, 1183 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[W]here a party induces an appli-\\ncant to refrain from intervening and there is reasonable reli-\\nance, the applicantʹs motion should not fail on timeliness\\ngrounds.”); United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1256, 1263\\n(7th Cir. 1989) (“[W]hen a federal judicial decree unexpect-\\nedly impairs settled expectations, and does so on what might\\nappear to be arbitrary and discriminatory grounds, the judge\\nis obliged to listen to the victims of the decree when they\\nmake prompt application to intervene.”); Sokaogon, 214 F.3d\\nat 949 (characterizing City of Chicago as a case “where the\\nwhite female police officers who wanted to intervene could\\nnot have anticipated that the new procedures would discrim-\\ninate against them”).\\n These are all cases where the intervenor could not have\\nreasonably anticipated that its interests were at issue or un-\\nrepresented until immediately prior to the attempted inter-\\nvention. But where the intervenor “has known all along that\\nits interests are directly pitted against” those of the parties,\\nthen the mere fact that the precise outcome of the litigation\\nwas unexpected does not restart the timeliness analysis.\\nSokaogon, 214 F.3d at 950. Reich, City of Chicago, and Alcan sup-\\nport affirmance because the Lodge has not shown that it rea-\\nsonably believed that its interests were not at issue or pro-\\ntected, much less that those interests were then unexpectedly\\nimpaired.\\n The Lodge emphasizes that State’s representatives repeat-\\nedly assured them that the consent decree would not impact\\nCBA rights. But the very fact that the Lodge and State were\\ndiscussing the need for “carve-out” language makes clear that\\nboth anticipated that the consent decree would address mat-\\nters which arguably fell under the purview of the CBA. The\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 11\\n\\nState also refused to provide copies of the draft proposals the\\nState and City were exchanging. And the State and City ex-\\ncluded the Lodge from the settlement conferences with the\\ndistrict court, despite the Lodge showing up and asking to be\\nadmitted. Thus, there were many indicators that the Lodge’s\\ninterests were “directly pitted” against the State’s and City’s.\\n And, more importantly, the Lodge does not identify an\\nunexpected development which would excuse its delay. The\\nmotion for intervention cited the community group recom-\\nmendations as a threat, but those recommendations were\\nnonbinding. The motion also asserted that the injunctive relief\\nrequested in the August 2017 complaint would impair CBA\\nrights. But that argument simply underscores the Lodge’s\\nnine-month delay. In fact, in the subsequent motion to hold\\nproceedings in abeyance, the Lodge pointed to the Depart-\\nment of Justice’s January 2017 report as the reason it believed\\nits rights were at issue. We do not dispute that the Lodge\\ncould have sought intervention by relying on the complaint\\nand report. But the Lodge’s reliance on those documents\\ndemonstrates that the justification for intervention did not ap-\\npreciably change between August 2017 and June 2018.\\n Even the Lodge’s ex post reason for intervention (infor-\\nmation from confidential sources) suffers from this flaw. Re-\\nmember that, until July 2018, the Lodge had not received any\\nconsent decree draft language or been permitted to partici-\\npate directly in settlement negotiations. In May 2018, confi-\\ndential sources allegedly told the Lodge that “there were con-\\nsent decree provisions that would conflict with the provisions\\nof the collective bargaining agreement.” (R. 81-4 at 8–9). But\\nthose sources did not provide copies of those provisions\\n(much less copies of any carve-out language). Based on this\\n\\f12 No. 18-2805\\n\\ninformation, the Lodge determined that the consent decree\\nmight impact its interests. But the Lodge never identifies the\\nspecific information that these sources provided which the\\nLodge could not have previously intuited from the complaint\\nor discussions with the State. For these reasons, the district\\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in determining that the\\nLodge had notice of its interest beginning in August 2017.\\n B. Prejudice to the State and City\\n We next consider “the prejudice caused to the original par-\\nties by the delay.” Grochocinski, 719 F.3d at 797–98. The preju-\\ndice here is manifest. “Once parties have invested time and\\neffort into settling a case it would be prejudicial to allow in-\\ntervention.” Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir.\\n1991). That is particularly true when the settlement negotia-\\ntions were complex and well-publicized, as was the case here.\\nSee id.; see also City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 536. The Lodge\\nargues that the prejudice caused by its delay was minimal be-\\ncause it only waited several weeks from the time it deter-\\nmined its interests were at stake before filing its motion. But\\nif the Lodge’s delay began when the State filed the com-\\nplaint—as the district court properly calculated—then the\\nprejudice becomes significant. The district court did not err in\\ndetermining that intervention would cause prejudice.\\n C. Prejudice to the Lodge\\n The Lodge next argues that the district court erred in find-\\ning that the potential for prejudice to the Lodge was insuffi-\\ncient to mandate intervention. When the district court\\nproperly denies a motion to intervene, the applicants cannot\\n“attack the fairness of [a] consent decree because they are not\\nparties to the agreement.” B.H. by Pierce v. Murphy, 984 F.2d\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 13\\n\\n196, 199 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting City of Chicago, 908 F.2d at\\n200)). But the inability to appeal the entry of a consent decree\\ndoes not always mandate intervention. Rather, when the in-\\nterested party can adequately convey its concerns to the dis-\\ntrict court at the fairness hearing, prejudice is often minimal.\\nSee City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 537 (“Because [the pro-\\nposed intervenor] has already had an opportunity to present\\nits views to the district court, it would suffer little prejudice if\\nit were denied permission to intervene at this late stage in the\\nproceedings.”). The Lodge has enjoyed repeated (and contin-\\nuing) opportunities to do so.\\n The Lodge believes the draft consent decree will impair\\nCBA rights and displace protections provided by Illinois stat-\\nutes. The district court found that there was “some evidence\\nthat parts of the current draft consent decree may conflict with\\nthe CBA, the [Illinois Public Labor Relations Act], or other\\nstate laws.” (R. 88 at 17.) For the purposes of this opinion, we\\nwill assume that certain provisions of the draft consent decree\\nconflict—on their face—with the CBA and Illinois law.\\n Notwithstanding that potential for conflict, the Lodge’s\\nrights are protected. We begin with the carve-out language in-\\ncluded in the decree. That provision expressly confirms that\\n“[n]othing in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as obli-\\ngating the City or the Unions to violate … the terms of the\\nCBAs … with respect to the subject of wages, hours, and terms\\nand conditions of employment unless such terms violate the\\nU.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy.” (R. 81-2 at\\n217.) The Lodge argues that this provision is “wholly different\\nfrom a ‘shall not conflict with’ prohibition for the City and the\\n[State] to impinge upon the CBA.” (Appellant’s Br. at 33.) The\\nlanguage speaks for itself. Read as a whole, ¶ 687 makes clear\\n\\f14 No. 18-2805\\n\\nthat the parties do not intend for the consent decree to be in-\\nterpreted as impairing CBA rights.\\n The Lodge also argues that the exception in ¶ 687, indicat-\\ning that the decree may displace CBA provisions if they “vio-\\nlate the U.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy,” swal-\\nlows the rule. “Public policy” is undefined, and so there is ar-\\nguably ambiguity regarding what triggers that exception.\\n But, as the district court recognized, existing law already\\nprovides protections for the Lodge. “Before entering a con-\\nsent decree the judge must satisfy himself that the decree is\\nconsistent with the Constitution and laws, does not under-\\nmine the rightful interests of third parties, and is an appropri-\\nate commitment of the court’s limited resources.” Kasper v. Bd.\\nof Election Comm’rs of the City of Chicago, 814 F.2d 332, 338 (7th\\nCir. 1987). Similarly, consent decrees “may not alter collective\\nbargaining agreements without the union’s assent.” People\\nWho Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d\\n1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1992). “Neither may litigants agree to dis-\\nregard valid state laws.” Id. In other words, because “[c]on-\\nsent decrees are fundamentally contracts,” the parties to those\\ndecrees “‘may not impose duties or obligations on a third\\nparty, without that party’s agreement.’” Id. (quoting Firefight-\\ners Local 93 v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529 (1986)).\\n The parties negotiate and the district court considers the\\nconsent decree against this background law, which protects\\nthe Lodge even if ¶ 687 contains ambiguities. Simply put, a\\nconsent decree cannot accidentally eliminate the rights of\\nthird parties. And if the parties interpret the consent decree in\\na way which violates CBA rights, the Lodge can avail itself of\\nnormal remedies for CBA violations. See W.R. Grace & Co. v.\\nLocal Union 759, Intʹl Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum &\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 15\\n\\nPlastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 770 (1983) (affirming the\\nenforcement of an arbitration award for violating the CBA,\\neven though a settlement agreement required the company’s\\nviolation).\\n Admittedly, “[c]onsent decrees can alter the state law\\nrights of third parties.” Application of Cty. Collector of Cty. of\\nWinnebago, Ill., 96 F.3d 890, 901 (7th Cir. 1996). But that’s true\\n“only where the change is necessary to remedy a violation of\\nfederal law.” Id. (emphasis added); see also People Who Care,\\n961 F.2d at 1339 (“[B]efore altering the contractual (or state-\\nlaw) entitlements of third parties, the court must find the\\nchange necessary to an appropriate remedy for a legal\\nwrong.”). The district court has made no finding of necessity.\\nTo the contrary, the court emphasized that it “is obligated to\\nuphold the applicable law in resolving any real conflicts be-\\ntween the proposed decree and any existing or future con-\\ntracts.” Illinois v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-6260, 2018 WL\\n3920816, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018). The district court noted\\nthat consent decrees typically cannot subvert CBA rights, but\\nreminded the parties that “a CBA also must comply with fed-\\neral law.” Id. at *9.\\n Thus, the Lodge’s assertion of prejudice is largely specu-\\nlative. As things stand now, the consent decree cannot impair\\nthe CBA or state law rights enjoyed by Chicago police officers.\\nThat will change only if the district court concludes that fed-\\neral law requires the abrogation of those rights. Even then, the\\nabrogation must be narrowly tailored. We decline to speculate\\nwhether federal law will require such a remedy here. On the\\npresent facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in\\nfinding that intervention was unwarranted given the minimal\\nprejudice identified by the Lodge.\\n\\f16 No. 18-2805\\n\\n There is one final matter worth discussing. The district\\ncourt assured the Lodge that, “if the assumptions about the\\nfuture course of this litigation described above should turn\\nout to be radically incorrect, nothing in the rules or the case\\nlaw of which this court is aware would prevent re-examina-\\ntion of the matter of intervention.” City of Chicago, 2018 WL\\n3920816, at *11 n.5 (citing State v. Dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,\\n262 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir. 2001)). That is correct. The Lodge’s\\nallegations of prejudice are presently speculative, and the\\nother factors counsel against intervention. But if the Lodge’s\\nfears are substantiated, the balance of interests will shift.\\n D. Unusual Circumstances\\n We consider a final factor: whether any unusual circum-\\nstances mitigated or aggravated the delay. The district court\\ndid not consider this factor in a separate section. The Lodge\\nargues that the failure to consider all four factors mandates\\nreversal. (Appellant’s Br. at 15 (citing Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S.\\nForest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701 (7th Cir. 2003) (reversing\\nbecause the district court’s analysis of timeliness factors did\\nnot correspond to the four factors and because other aspects\\nof the reasoning were too conclusory for “us to identify the\\nreasoning behind the holdings”))). The Lodge only identifies\\none unusual circumstance here: the “reasonable reliance” ar-\\ngument addressed above. But the Lodge never squarely pre-\\nsented that legal theory to the district court. And the district\\ncourt considered the facts underlying the argument but found\\nthem unpersuasive. See City of Chicago, 2018 WL 3920816, at\\n*5–6. Our precedent merely requires that the district court\\nconsider the appropriate factors and discuss them in detail\\nsufficient for us to review on appeal. See Heartwood, 316 F.3d\\nat 701. When a party fails to specifically identify unusual\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 17\\n\\ncircumstances, the district court does not err in focusing on\\nthe disputed factors.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Lodge knew from the filing of the complaint that the\\nconsent decree might affect its interests. Indeed, the Lodge\\ntacitly admitted this when it relied on allegations in the com-\\nplaint—including reports from 2016 and 2017—in arguing to\\nthe district court that intervention was necessary. And setting\\nthe delay aside, the Lodge’s assertions of prejudice are pres-\\nently unsubstantiated. Existing law provides significant safe-\\nguards for the Lodge’s interests. If those protections prove in-\\nsufficient, then a renewed motion for intervention might be\\nappropriate. But on the facts as they currently stand, the dis-\\ntrict court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Lodge’s\\nmotion untimely.\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the\\nmotion for intervention.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":165,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578299,"string":"4,578,299"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1799"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1799\\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\\n Petitioner,\\n v.\\n\\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\\n Respondent.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\\n No. A089-856-143\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\\n\\f2 No. 18-1799\\n\\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\\n1, 7 (2004).\\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\\nedent says otherwise.\\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\\n\\fNo. 18-1799 3\\n\\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\\none’s health or ability to walk.\\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\\n\\f4 No. 18-1799\\n\\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\\nwe need not decide the issue.\\n The petition for review is DENIED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355552/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578299/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1799\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\n Petitioner,\n v.\n\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\n Respondent.\n ____________________\n\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\n No. A089-856-143\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\n\f2 No. 18-1799\n\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\n1, 7 (2004).\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\nedent says otherwise.\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\n\fNo. 18-1799 3\n\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\none’s health or ability to walk.\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\n\f4 No. 18-1799\n\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\nwe need not decide the issue.\n The petition for review is DENIED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1799\\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\\n Petitioner,\\n v.\\n\\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\\n Respondent.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\\n No. A089-856-143\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\\n\\f2 No. 18-1799\\n\\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\\n1, 7 (2004).\\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\\nedent says otherwise.\\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\\n\\fNo. 18-1799 3\\n\\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\\none’s health or ability to walk.\\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\\n\\f4 No. 18-1799\\n\\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\\nwe need not decide the issue.\\n The petition for review is DENIED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":166,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578301,"string":"4,578,301"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Derrick D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel L. CONLEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-2980"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Ripple, Barrett\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Kenneth Francis Ripple\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-2980\\nDERRICK D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nDANIEL L. CONLEY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:15-cv-01522-WTL-DML — William T. Lawrence, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Derrick D. Neely-Bey Tarik-El filed\\nthis action against various officials at the Correctional Indus-\\ntrial Facility (“CIF”) in Pendleton, Indiana, and at the Indi-\\nana Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). He alleged that\\nthe defendants had prevented him from participating fully\\nin the worship services of the Moorish Science Temple of\\nAmerica (“MSTA”) held at the CIF, in violation of the Free\\nExercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.\\n\\f2 No. 17-2980\\n\\nThe district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1915A. It dismissed claims against Commissioner Bruce\\nLemmon and Superintendent Wendy Knight on Eleventh\\nAmendment grounds and against Officer David Liebel on\\nthe ground that he had not participated personally in any of\\nthe actions against Mr. Neely-Bey. The district court allowed\\nthe damages claims against the remaining defendants to go\\nforward. Following discovery, the remaining defendants\\nmoved for summary judgment on qualified immunity\\ngrounds. The district court granted the motion.\\n Before us, Mr. Neely-Bey contends that the district court\\nfailed to recognize that his complaint sought both damages\\nand injunctive relief. He maintains that his injunctive relief\\nclaims must be reinstated because they are unaffected by\\nsovereign or qualified immunity. Moreover, he contends\\nthat the district court erred in granting qualified immunity\\nto the defendants on his damages claims.\\n We conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified\\nimmunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the\\nFree Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause and,\\ntherefore, affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to\\nthose claims. We agree with Mr. Neely-Bey that the district\\ncourt misread his complaint and that it clearly seeks injunc-\\ntive relief as well as damages against the defendants. More-\\nover, the district court should have read Mr. Neely-Bey’s pro\\nse free exercise claim as seeking injunctive relief under the\\nReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42\\nU.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”). Consequently, we must\\nremand so that the district court may consider whether in-\\njunctive relief should be granted on the free exercise claim.\\nIn addressing this matter, the district court first must deter-\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 3\\n\\nmine whether the free exercise claim and RLUIPA claims are\\nmoot. If it determines that the claims are not moot, it should\\nconsider whether injunctive relief is warranted. As a matter\\nof law, there is no basis for injunctive relief on the estab-\\nlishment clause claims, and we therefore direct the district\\ncourt to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on those\\nclaims.\\n I\\n BACKGROUND\\n A.\\n Until recently, Mr. Neely-Bey was incarcerated at CIF,\\nwhere he was an active member of the MSTA congregation.\\nThe MSTA is a national religious organization founded by\\nProphet Noble Drew Ali. 1 Its most important group worship\\nmeeting is held on Fridays and includes recitation of the\\nMoorish American Prayer, during which each adherent\\n“stands, [and] faces the East.” 2 After the prayer, a group\\nleader reads the Divine Constitution, Bylaws, and verses\\nfrom the Koran. Following the readings, the leader invites\\nother participants to comment upon the readings. Finally,\\nservices conclude with the “Warning from the Holy Proph-\\net” followed by another recitation of the Moorish American\\nPrayer.3 The MSTA also holds “Sunday School.” 4 During\\n\\n\\n1 R.81 at 97.\\n2 Id. at 98.\\n3 Id.\\n4It appears that, at some point, the MSTA group at CIF began meeting\\non Mondays instead of Sundays. See id. at 78 (Memo from Chaplain\\n (continued … )\\n\\f4 No. 17-2980\\n\\n2013 and 2014, Mr. Neely-Bey attended Friday Holy Day\\nservices and Sunday school. The records of the MSTA reflect\\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey regularly spoke at these meetings. 5\\n In January 2013, Mr. Neely-Bey submitted an affidavit to\\nIDOC Commissioner Lemmon. The cover letter stated that\\nMr. Neely-Bey was providing the affidavit to Commission-\\ner Lemmon “so that we may come to an understanding\\n[that] this affidavit is [b]inding on you and you[r] office.” 6 It\\nasserted that Mr. Neely-Bey was a “Sovereign Moorish Na-\\ntional”; that he was not subject to the enactments of the\\nUnited States Congress because he considered it to be a for-\\neign power; and that he “squarely challenge[d] the fraudu-\\nlent, usurping entanglement of JURISDICTION” over him. 7\\nThe affidavit requested a hearing to establish the IDOC’s au-\\nthority over Mr. Neely-Bey. As a result of the affidavit, the\\nIDOC classified Mr. Neely-Bey as a “Sovereign Citizen,”\\nwhich was designated as a “Security Threat Group.” 8\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nSmith setting forth how Mr. Neely-Bey may participate in “Monday\\nmeetings”).\\n5 See R.40; R.41; R.42.\\n6 R.70-3 at 2.\\n7 See id. at 3–4 (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n8 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey claims that “the record does not support\\nthat he subscribed to such ‘sovereign citizen’ beliefs or that he intended\\nto associate himself with such beliefs by identifying himself as a ‘Sover-\\neign Moorish National.’” Appellant’s Br. 9. However, there is no evi-\\ndence in the record that Mr. Neely-Bey contested or grieved this designa-\\ntion. Mr. Neely-Bey also does not maintain that sovereign citizens should\\nnot be considered a Security Threat Group. Thus, neither\\n (continued … )\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 5\\n\\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s affidavit made its way to Brother M.\\nDoles Bey, 9 the MSTA minister who led the services at the\\nCIF.10 On April 6, 2014, Brother Doles Bey sent a memoran-\\ndum on MSTA letterhead to, among others, David Liebel,\\nDirector of Religious and Volunteer Services Chaplains at\\nthe CIF; Brother V. Jones-Bey, Minister of Institutional Mis-\\nsion Affairs for the MSTA; and Mr. Neely-Bey. In his memo-\\nrandum, Brother Doles Bey explained that sovereign citizens\\ncould not be participating members of the MSTA. The memo\\nrelated that, at another institution, the MSTA had allowed an\\ninmate with a “Security Group Threat” designation to facili-\\ntate a service, and as a result, the institution’s MSTA group\\n“was shut down.” 11 Brother Doles Bey stated that\\n\\n( … continued)\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s classification as a sovereign citizen, his designation as a\\nmember of a Security Threat Group, nor the restrictions placed on Secu-\\nrity Threat Groups are at issue in this appeal.\\n9 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey repeatedly addresses Brother Doles Bey as a\\n“volunteer minister,” suggesting that all of his ministry work is volun-\\ntary and that he is not an official representative of the MSTA. The record\\ndoes not bear this out. In his complaint, Mr. Neely-Bey identifies Brother\\nDoles Bey as “the Minister & I.D.O.C. volunteer of the Moorish Science\\nTemple of America.” R.1 at 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, according to\\nIDOC policies, a volunteer like Brother Doles Bey must be “recognized\\nby a religious body.” R.81 at 37.\\n10 Mr. Neely-Bey alleges in his complaint that IDOC Commissioner\\nLemmon forwarded the affidavit to the Director of Religious Services,\\nDavid Liebel. R.1 at 3. Mr. Liebel presumably then passed it on to Broth-\\ner Doles Bey, although there is not an allegation in the complaint to that\\neffect. Neither party identifies any evidence in the record that establishes\\nhow the affidavit reached Brother Doles Bey.\\n11 R.81 at 71.\\n\\f6 No. 17-2980\\n\\nMr. Neely-Bey could attend services as a “guest,” but that he\\ncould not teach or serve as a facilitator. 12\\n On March 23, 2015, the Chaplain at the CIF, David Smith,\\nsent a memo to Mr. Neely-Bey in which he stated that he\\nhad “received [Mr. Neely-Bey’s] request to be added to the\\nMST of A Religious Services group” and that he needed\\nMr. Neely-Bey “to understand that by returning to this\\ngroup you agree to fully cooperate with and follow the April\\n6, 2014 sanctions placed on you by MST of A, Inc.” 13 Specifi-\\ncally, Mr. Neely-Bey was forbidden from standing, speaking\\nat, or facilitating any of the Friday services. He was allowed\\nto speak when called upon during their Monday meetings;\\nhowever, he could “not debate, instruct, dominate or speak\\nagainst the teaching of the Prophet, the MST of A, Inc., or the\\nU.S. Constitution.” 14\\n In late summer 2015, Chaplain Smith filed a “Report of\\nConduct” regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s actions during an\\nMSTA meeting. Chaplain Smith stated that he had witnessed\\nMr. Neely-Bey “speak and openly participate during the\\nFriday MSTA Holy Day meeting” and that these actions\\nwere in violation of the direct order that he had given to\\nMr. Neely-Bey, orally and in writing. 15 Chaplain Smith con-\\ncluded that Mr. Neely-Bey’s “actions … demonstrated his\\n\\n12 Id. at 72.\\n13Id. at 78. The parties do not explain why Mr. Neely-Bey, who had been\\nan active member of the MSTA in 2013 and 2014, had to request to be\\nadded to the group in 2015.\\n14 Id.\\n15 Id. at 73.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 7\\n\\nintention to interfere and disrupt MSTA services on Holy\\nDays.” 16\\n Officer Daniel Conley “screened” the conduct report,17\\nand a hearing was held at Mr. Neely-Bey’s request. At the\\nhearing, chaired by Officer Richard Sidwell, it was deter-\\nmined that Mr. Neely-Bey had ignored an order by Chaplain\\nSmith. Mr. Neely-Bey was given twenty hours of extra work\\nto be completed in the next month. Although the determina-\\ntion makes no mention of it, Mr. Neely-Bey testified at his\\ndeposition, and the defendants conceded for purposes of\\nsummary judgment, that Mr. Neely-Bey “was suspended\\nfrom [MSTA] meetings for one year.”18\\n Mr. Neely-Bey appealed to CIF Superintendent, Wendy\\nKnight. He argued that the sanction merely enforced the\\nMSTA’s ban on his participation in its services. Consequent-\\nly, because “the State cannot get [in]volved in M.S.T. of A.\\naffairs,” 19 the order could not be enforced. Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nappeal was denied. In her explanation, Superintendent\\nKnight stated:\\n\\n\\n\\n16 Id.\\n17 Again, the parties do not direct us to any place in the record contain-\\ning a description of the screening function. In admissions produced in\\nresponse to Mr. Neely-Bey’s requests, Officer Conley stated that he “had\\nreservation[s] about the conduct report.” Id. at 22. Neither in the admis-\\nsion, nor in any other place in the record, does Officer Conley explain the\\nnature of his reservations.\\n18 R.71 at 1.\\n19 R.81 at 76.\\n\\f8 No. 17-2980\\n\\n You were charged with code 347 “Refusing to\\n obey an order from staff” and you were found\\n guilty by the DHB chairman.\\n I find the Report of Conduct to be descriptive\\n and credible, and the statement provided by\\n staff within the body of the report did support\\n the finding. When any staff member gives you\\n an order, you need to follow it. After you have\\n followed the staff member’s order, if you do\\n not agree with that order or any order from\\n staff, then you have a right to follow the de-\\n partment’s grievance procedures. I find no er-\\n rors in your case and the Report of Conduct is\\n clear. You have provided me with no state-\\n ments or evidence to cause me to change the\\n decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer,\\n therefore: your appeal is denied.[ 20]\\n B.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed this action in the district court\\nagainst Commissioner Lemmon, Superintendent Knight, Di-\\nrector of Religious Services David Liebel, Chaplain Smith,\\nOfficer Conley, and Officer Sidwell. He alleged that he had\\nbeen subjected to religious persecution when his affidavit\\nwas forwarded to the MSTA, that the CIF had become en-\\ntangled in a religious dispute by enforcing the memorandum\\nof Brother Doles Bey, and that the CIF defendants had vio-\\nlated his First Amendment right to free exercise when Broth-\\ner Doles Bey’s memo was enforced. As a remedy,\\n\\n20 Id. at 77.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 9\\n\\nMr. Neely-Bey requested “that [he] receive $750,000 dollars”\\nand that the defendants “cease all action against [him].” 21\\n The district court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint\\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 22 The court determined that any\\nclaims for damages against Commissioner Lemmon and Su-\\nperintendent Knight in their official capacities were barred\\nby the Eleventh Amendment and therefore dismissed those\\nclaims. It also dismissed the claims against Mr. Liebel be-\\ncause he was not involved personally in the alleged depriva-\\ntion. The court therefore instructed the clerk “to remove\\nBruce Lemmon, Wendy Knight, and David Liebel from the\\ndocket.” 23 The court allowed the damages claims against\\nChaplain Smith, Officer Conley, and Officer Sidwell to pro-\\nceed. The court’s screening order was silent with respect to\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider. 24 He argued\\nthat the Eleventh Amendment did not bar his claims against\\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight because\\nthe claims were brought against the defendants in both their\\n\\n\\n21 R.1 at 6.\\n22 The district court initially dismissed Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, be-\\nlieving that it was duplicative of another action that Mr. Neely-Bey had\\nfiled. See R.8. Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider, pointing out\\nthat the disciplinary action on which the present action is based is differ-\\nent from the ones at issue in the earlier action. See R.10. The court grant-\\ned the motion to reconsider and conducted a merits screening under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1915A. See R.13.\\n23 R.13 at 3.\\n24 See R.17.\\n\\f10 No. 17-2980\\n\\nofficial capacities and their personal capacities.25\\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue, however, that the district court\\nshould reinstate his claims for injunctive relief because sov-\\nereign immunity did not operate as a bar to injunctive relief.\\nThe district court denied reconsideration “[f]or the reasons\\nset forth in the screening entry.”26\\n After discovery, the remaining defendants moved for\\nsummary judgment. Relying on Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,\\n530 U.S. 640 (2000), the defendants submitted that it was\\nclearly established that the MSTA had a First Amendment\\nright to choose its membership, and the sanction against\\nMr. Neely-Bey simply implemented that right. According to\\nthe defendants, “failure to enforce the MST of A memoran-\\ndum would be the equivalent of forcing the MST of A to as-\\nsociate with Neely-Bey as a member in violation of MST of\\nA’s First Amendment rights.” 27 Moreover, once the MSTA\\ndetermined that Mr. Neely-Bey could not participate in its\\nservices, IDOC was “prohibited from reviewing or question-\\ning [its] religious decisions.” 28\\n The defendants also asserted that, if they had violated\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s rights, they were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity. They noted that a “diligent search of Seventh Circuit\\nand United States Supreme Court cases ha[d] yielded no\\n\\n25He also argued that his claim against Mr. Liebel should be reinstated.\\nSee id. at 2.\\n26 R.19.\\n27 R.71 at 8.\\n28Id. at 7 (citing Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v.\\nEEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 186 (2012)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 11\\n\\ncases with closely analogous facts that would establish that\\nPlaintiffs’ [sic] rights have been violated in this case.” 29\\nTherefore, Mr. Neely-Bey had not met his burden of defeat-\\ning the qualified immunity defense.\\n In response, Mr. Neely-Bey maintained that IDOC’s en-\\nforcement of the limitations set forth in MSTA’s memoran-\\ndum violated the Establishment Clause and violated IDOC’s\\nown policies. 30 Regarding the defendants’ claim that they\\nwere enforcing MSTA’s associational rights, Mr. Neely-Bey\\nbelieved that Dale was distinguishable because he was not\\nasking to be appointed a leader of the MSTA, but only to\\nparticipate fully in the services.\\n Turning to the issue of qualified immunity,\\nMr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that\\nIDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex-\\ncept when required by penological interests. Mr. Neely-Bey\\nexplained that participating in the Friday services was a key\\nelement of the MSTA faith, that Chaplain Smith understood\\nthis, and that disciplining him for participating in the Friday\\nservices constituted an unreasonable burden on his free ex-\\nercise rights. He also claimed that the defendants had no le-\\ngitimate penological interests in preventing his participation\\nin Friday services. Turning specifically to Officers Conley\\nand Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey noted that Officer Conley admit-\\n\\n\\n29 Id. at 11.\\n30 Mr. Neely-Bey specifically identified the policy providing that “[t]he\\nDepartment does not endorse or recognize any particular denomination,\\nsect, or faction as the ‘correct’ manner to practice a particular religion.”\\nSee R.81 at 6.\\n\\f12 No. 17-2980\\n\\nted that he had reservations about Chaplain Smith’s conduct\\nreport, but nevertheless screened the conduct report. As for\\nOfficer Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that, at the time of\\nthe disciplinary hearing, Officer Sidwell was aware that the\\ndispute was of a religious as opposed to disciplinary nature.\\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue that, even if the doctrine of\\nqualified immunity protected the defendants from liability\\nfor damages, his claims for injunctive relief nevertheless\\ncould proceed.\\n The district court granted summary judgment to the re-\\nmaining defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. The\\ncourt explained that, although “[t]he general principles of\\nFirst Amendment law prohibiting officials from placing a\\nsubstantial burden on the free exercise of religion by inmates\\nare clearly established, … the qualified immunity defense\\nturns on whether the application of those principles to the\\ncircumstances faced by the defendants was clear at the\\ntime.” 31 “Here,” the court explained, Mr. Neely-Bey could\\nnot “prevail in his effort to overcome qualified immunity by\\nrelying on general principles of First Amendment right[s]”\\nbecause “[t]he Supreme Court has directed that ‘“clearly es-\\ntablished” law is not to be defined at a high level of generali-\\nty.’” 32 The court therefore entered judgment for the defend-\\nants.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n31 R.84 at 7.\\n32 Id. (quoting White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 13\\n\\n II\\n DISCUSSION\\nA. Free Exercise\\n 1. Claim for Damages\\n Mr. Neely-Bey first submits that the district court erred\\nin concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified\\nimmunity for damages related to his free exercise claim. The\\nprinciples governing this question are well-settled. Qualified\\nimmunity shields government officials from civil “liability\\n‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established\\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per-\\nson would have known.’” Purvis v. Oest, 614 F.3d 713, 720\\n(7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818\\n(1982)). A qualified immunity determination comprises two\\ninquiries; we must determine (1) “whether the plaintiff’s al-\\nlegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right,”\\nand (2) “whether the right was clearly established at the time\\nof defendant’s alleged misconduct.” McAllister v. Price, 615\\nF.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010). We are permitted to skip the\\nfirst inquiry and proceed directly to the question whether a\\nparticular right was clearly established. See, e.g., Whitlock v.\\nBrown, 596 F.3d 406, 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pearson v. Cal-\\nlahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). This is the approach that the dis-\\ntrict court took, and the defendants urge that we affirm the\\ndistrict court’s judgment on this basis.\\n As we frequently have explained, a clearly established\\nright is one that “is sufficiently clear that any reasonable of-\\nficial would understand that his or her actions violate that\\nright, meaning that existing precedent must have placed the\\nstatutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Zim-\\n\\f14 No. 17-2980\\n\\nmerman v. Doran, 807 F.3d 178, 182 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing\\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015)). “[A] case directly\\non point,” however, is not required. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). “The dispositive question is ‘whether\\nthe violative nature of particular conduct is clearly estab-\\nlished … .’” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (quoting al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. at 742). “This inquiry ‘“must be undertaken in light of the\\nspecific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”’”\\nId. (emphasis added) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.\\n194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)).\\n Here, the district court observed that there was no gov-\\nerning law “directly establishing that the defendants’ con-\\nduct in this case, where state officials enforced a ban from\\nparticipating in religious activities that was put in place by\\nthe religious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights\\nunder the First Amendment.” 33 Mr. Neely-Bey believes,\\nhowever, that the law “provided ‘fair warning’ to the de-\\nfendants ‘that their alleged [conduct] was unconstitution-\\nal.’” 34 According to Mr. Neely-Bey, the law was clearly es-\\ntablished that a prison official cannot deny a prisoner’s free\\nexercise rights based on the official’s understanding of the\\ntenets of a particular faith. He relies principally on Grayson\\nv. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012), and Vinning-El v. Ev-\\nans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011), for this proposition.\\n In Grayson, an inmate-adherent of the African Hebrew Is-\\nraelites of Jerusalem was forced to cut off his dreadlocks “on\\n\\n\\n33 R.84 at 7–8.\\n34 Appellant’s Br. 35–36 (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866\\n(2014) (per curiam)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 15\\n\\nthe ground that they posed a security risk.” 666 F.3d at 451.\\nGrayson claimed that not cutting his hair was an element of\\nhis faith; specifically, he informed prison officials that he had\\ntaken “the Nazarite vow of separation,” which required him\\nto refrain from cutting his hair. Id. at 454. The prison chap-\\nlain denied Grayson’s request to grow out his hair because\\nwearing dreadlocks was not a required element of the Afri-\\ncan Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. The chaplain acknowl-\\nedged that Rastafarians were allowed to have dreadlocks,\\nbut distinguished their situation because having dreadlocks\\nwas a requirement of their faith. On appeal, we observed\\nthat Grayson’s act of not cutting his hair could have been a\\nlegitimate aspect of his personal faith. We explained that\\n“[p]rison authorities are always entitled to balance security\\nconcerns against religious practices, and the need to do so\\nmay be greater with regard to optional than to mandatory\\npractices.” Id. at 455. Nevertheless,\\n [p]rison chaplains may not determine which\\n religious observances are permissible because\\n orthodox. … No more can the prison permit\\n Rastafarians to wear long hair and without jus-\\n tification forbid a sincere African Hebrew Isra-\\n elite of Jerusalem to do so, even if he is more\\n zealous in his religious observances than his\\n religion requires him to be.\\nId.\\n We reached a similar result in Vinning-El. Vinning-El in-\\nvolved an MSTA inmate who asked for a vegan diet as a re-\\nligious accommodation. The chaplain denied the request,\\n“observing that the tenets of [the MSTA] require a non-pork\\ndiet,” not a vegan one. 657 F.3d at 592. Vinning-El sued, and\\n\\f16 No. 17-2980\\n\\nthe district court denied the chaplain qualified immunity.\\nOn appeal, we observed that the district court had not made\\nany findings concerning the chaplain’s motivations in deny-\\ning Vinning-El’s request. The chaplain could have denied\\nthe request because he did not believe that a vegan diet was\\na tenet of the MSTA faith, or he could have denied it because\\nhe did not believe that the request was being made on reli-\\ngious grounds. If the former, the chaplain was not entitled to\\nqualified immunity because it was clearly established at the\\ntime of the denial that “[a] personal religious faith is entitled\\nto as much protection as one espoused by an organized\\ngroup.” Id. at 593. However, if the latter, then the chaplain\\nhad not violated the inmate’s rights because mere dietary\\npreferences, unrelated to religious observances, need not be\\naccommodated. Absent a determination as to the chaplain’s\\nreasoning, we could not resolve the qualified immunity\\nquestion and therefore remanded the case to the district\\ncourt. See id. at 595.\\n Neither Grayson nor Vinning-El speak to the circumstanc-\\nes before us today. In both cases, the individual inmate re-\\nquested that his religious belief be accommodated even\\nthough that belief was arguably personal to him and more\\ndemanding than the ones generally followed by adherents of\\nthe religion with which he professed to be affiliated.\\nMr. Neely-Bey presents a very different situation. He does\\nnot ask the CIF to accommodate a personal belief not re-\\nquired of MSTA adherents. Rather, he asks that the CIF re-\\nquire the MSTA to accept him as a full member even though\\nhis belief system as a declared sovereign citizen differs sub-\\nstantially from that of the MSTA and MSTA liturgical prac-\\ntices require that its adherents share their religious beliefs in\\nthe course of their worship services. The MSTA consequent-\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 17\\n\\nly believes that admitting Mr. Neely-Bey as a member would\\nchallenge its teachings and, possibly, jeopardize its status.\\n This is the crux of the defendants’ position: They main-\\ntain that, had they required the MSTA to allow Mr. Neely-\\nBey to participate as a full member in Friday services, they\\nwould have violated MSTA’s associational rights. See Boy\\nScouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).\\n In Dale, a former Eagle Scout “applied for adult member-\\nship in the Boy Scouts” as an assistant scoutmaster. Id. at\\n644. The BSA initially approved the application, but later re-\\nvoked his membership after discovering that Dale was ho-\\nmosexual and had taken public stances in favor of gay\\nrights. According to the BSA, being a homosexual was anti-\\nthetical to its mission. Dale then instituted a state-court ac-\\ntion claiming that the BSA’s revocation of his membership\\nviolated New Jersey’s law prohibiting discrimination in pub-\\nlic accommodations. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed\\nwith Dale and further held that requiring BSA to accept Dale\\nas a scout leader did not violate BSA’s right to association\\nunder the First Amendment.\\n The Supreme Court reversed. It observed that “[t]he\\nforced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes\\nthe group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence\\nof that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability\\nto advocate public or private viewpoints.” Id. at 648. In as-\\nsessing whether this was the case, the Court explained that\\ndeference is owed to the group’s formulation of its “goals\\nand philosophy,” as well as its “view of what would impair\\nits expression.” Id. at 651, 653. Because the BSA believed that\\nits principles precluded the practice of homosexuality and\\nbecause “Dale’s presence in the [BSA] would … force the or-\\n\\f18 No. 17-2980\\n\\nganization to send a message … that [it] accepts homosexual\\nconduct as a legitimate form of behavior,” “the forced inclu-\\nsion of Dale would significantly affect its expression.” Id. at\\n653, 656.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey believes that the defendants’ reliance on\\nDale is misplaced. Dale, he contends, was in a leadership\\nrole, whereas he only was asking to participate as a member\\nof the MSTA. The Court in Dale, however, did not limit its\\ndiscussion to leaders of organizations, but instead asked\\nwhether “[t]he forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a\\ngroup infringes the group’s freedom of expressive associa-\\ntion.” Id. at 648. Although the relative position of the indi-\\nvidual in a group may bear on whether the group’s inclusion\\nof the individual “affects in a significant way the group’s\\nability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” id., the\\nCourt spoke in terms of “membership” as well as leadership,\\nsee id. at 654–56. Moreover, the record reflects that, as a full\\nmember of the MSTA, Mr. Neely-Bey would be speaking to\\nother members of the congregation and commenting on the\\nwords of the Prophet and passages of the Koran. Requiring\\nthe MSTA to allow an individual to speak at its worship ser-\\nvices when that person holds beliefs antithetical to its own\\nwould significantly affect its ability to preserve and pass on\\nits message.\\n Here, Chaplain Smith and the enforcement officers were\\nrequired to balance the religious practices of one adherent\\nagainst the rights of other inmates to exercise their religious\\nbeliefs in accordance with MSTA teaching. Neither Grayson\\nnor Vinning-El offers guidance for correctional officers who\\nfind themselves in this dilemma. Indeed, there do not appear\\nto be any cases that instruct prison officials on how they\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 19\\n\\nshould strike the appropriate balance between these compet-\\ning interests. 35 As we have explained previously, “[p]ublic\\nofficials can be held liable for violating clearly established\\nlaw, but not for choosing sides on a debatable issue.” O’Keefe\\nv. Chisholm, 769 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2014). The district\\ncourt, therefore, did not err in granting the defendants quali-\\nfied immunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s damages claims under\\nthe Free Exercise Clause. 36\\n 2. Claim for Injunctive Relief\\n Mr. Neely-Bey next submits that, even if the district court\\ncorrectly granted qualified immunity to the defendants on\\nhis claim for damages, it failed to recognize that his com-\\nplaint also stated a claim for injunctive relief under both the\\nFree Exercise Clause and under RLUIPA. Moreover,\\nMr. Neely-Bey continues, qualified immunity does not pro-\\ntect the defendants from a claim for injunctive relief. See\\nHannemann v. S. Door Cnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th\\nCir. 2012). Consequently, he contends, a remand is necessary\\n\\n\\n35 Indeed, Mr. Neely-Bey notes that “Defendants have cited no decision\\nsuggesting the government can rely on a group’s associational interests\\nto limit an individual’s participation in religious services, based solely on\\nhis expression of allegedly unorthodox beliefs.” Appellant’s Br. 31. That\\ncourts have not had to grapple with this difficult issue would seem to\\ncounsel the application of qualified immunity.\\n36 Notably, the defendants make only a passing reference to whether\\nallowing Mr. Neely-Bey to participate as a full member of the religion\\nwould jeopardize the security or rehabilitative concerns of the institu-\\ntion. For reasons not at all clear to us, with the exception of this single,\\noblique reference in its appellate brief, this contention, which may well\\nhave merit, is never developed.\\n\\f20 No. 17-2980\\n\\nfor the district court to consider the merits of his claim for\\ninjunctive relief.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, among other relief, asks that\\nthe defendants “cease all action against [him].” 37 When the\\ndistrict court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1915A, it nevertheless acknowledged only that he\\nwas “seek[ing] monetary relief”; the court made no mention\\nof Mr. Neely-Bey’s prayer for injunctive relief. 38 Proceeding\\non the assumption that Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims were for\\nmonetary relief alone, the court dismissed the claims against\\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight in their\\nofficial capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and\\ndirected that these defendants be removed from the docket.\\nThe court allowed only the damages claims against Chaplain\\nSmith and Officers Conley and Sidwell to go forward.\\nMr. Neely-Bey moved for reconsideration of the screening\\norder, but not on the ground that the district court had mis-\\nread his complaint to include only claims for damages.\\n a.\\n Before us, the defendants at least tacitly acknowledge\\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint requested injunctive relief. 39\\nThey assert, however, that Mr. Neely-Bey abandoned his\\nclaim for injunctive relief by not raising the issue in his mo-\\n\\n\\n37 R.1 at 6.\\n38 R.13 at 2.\\n39 See Appellees’ Br. 28 (noting that the district court believed that\\nMr. Neely-Bey was seeking only damages and acknowledging that “this\\nassumption may have been a mistake”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 21\\n\\ntion to reconsider or in his response to the motion for sum-\\nmary judgment.\\n It is the general rule that a litigant does not abandon an\\nargument by failing to raise it in a motion to reconsider.\\nHamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 897 F.3d 835, 838\\n(7th Cir. 2018) (“And it is never necessary to remonstrate\\nwith a judge after an order has been entered. Motions for re-\\nconsideration are discretionary, not obligatory.”). The de-\\nfendants nevertheless submit that, “where a plaintiff is seek-\\ning relief from judgment that is most appropriately awarded\\nby a trial court on a Rule 60 motion, such as where the plain-\\ntiff is claiming oversight, mistake or clerical error, the plain-\\ntiff may waive his right to present that type of argument on\\nappeal if he did not make the appropriate Rule 60 motion\\nbelow.” Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 958–59 (7th Cir.\\n2000). Here, they contend, the district court seems simply to\\nhave misread or overlooked the full extent of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims, and such an oversight falls neatly\\nwithin the coverage of Rule 60(b)(1). 40 Consequently, the de-\\nfendants submit that, because Mr. Neely-Bey failed to raise\\nthe district court’s oversight in a Rule 60(b) motion, he can-\\nnot now pursue his claim for injunctive relief.\\n We do not believe that Denius compels this result. First,\\nthe language on which the defendants rely was not part of\\nour holding. After discussing what might be the effect of De-\\n\\n40 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides: “(b) Grounds for\\nRelief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just\\nterms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a fi-\\nnal judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mis-\\ntake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[] ….”\\n\\f22 No. 17-2980\\n\\nnius’s failure to file a Rule 60(b) motion if the court had over-\\nlooked his claim for injunctive relief, we explained that this,\\nin fact, had not occurred: “This is not a case where the dis-\\ntrict court completely overlooked plaintiff’s claims for equi-\\ntable relief.” Id. at 959. Rather, we observed, the district court\\nvery clearly had disposed of both “Denius’s claims for mon-\\netary and equitable relief through its summary judgment\\nopinion.” Id. Thus, we did not have to decide whether Deni-\\nus’s actions constituted waiver (or abandonment) because\\nthe nature of the district court’s error did not fall within the\\nlanguage of Rule 60(b).\\n Additionally, our discussion in Denius focused on the ef-\\nfect of failing to bring a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b), how-\\never, governs motions that seek to “‘relieve a party or its le-\\ngal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceed-\\ning’ for the enumerated reasons.” Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc.,\\n788 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n60(b)). The operative order here, however, was the district\\ncourt’s screening order, which was interlocutory. See DaSilva\\nv. Rymarkiewicz, 888 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 2018). It was in\\nthat order that the court narrowed the scope of the action to\\ninclude only claims for damages. When the defendants later\\nmoved for summary judgment, they reasonably focused\\ntheir motion on the claims for damages—the only ones still\\nbefore the court. Mr. Neely-Bey’s response, as well, was di-\\nrected to the claims for damages. There was no obvious way\\nfor Mr. Neely-Bey to revisit the dismissed claims in the brief-\\ning on the summary-judgment motion. Moreover, it was the\\ndistrict court’s summary-judgment ruling that immediately\\npreceded its entry of final judgment, the triggering event for\\na Rule 60(b) motion. Under these circumstances,\\nMr. Neely-Bey was not required to seek relief under Rule\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 23\\n\\n60(b) for the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his claims\\nfor injunctive relief. Consequently, Mr. Neely-Bey has not\\nwaived, or otherwise abandoned, his claim for injunctive re-\\nlief under the Free Exercise Clause. 41\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n41 Mr. Neely-Bey’s situation is readily distinguishable from the other\\ncases on which the defendants rely. See Heiar v. Crawford Cnty, 746 F.2d\\n1190, 1196 (7th Cir. 1984); Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d\\n335 (5th Cir. 2015). In Heiar, we held that the defendants had waived\\ntheir statute-of-limitations defense because, although included in the\\nanswer, they never again raised it—in a dispositive, pretrial motion, as\\nan item in the pretrial order, or in a motion for judgment at trial. See 746\\nF.2d at 1196. Here, however, the district court eliminated the claim for\\ninjunctive relief sua sponte, and there was no clear opportunity for\\nMr. Neely-Bey to raise the issue again with the district court before the\\nentry of final judgment. In Peterson, the plaintiff’s complaint had includ-\\ned a prayer for “[a]ny further legal and equitable relief to which Peterson\\nmay be justly entitled.” 806 F.3d at 339 (alteration in original). However,\\nPeterson did not request specific injunctive relief until after a jury verdict\\nin his favor. The district court granted the injunction, but the Fifth Cir-\\ncuit reversed and vacated the injunction. The Fifth Circuit explained that\\nthe defendant had been prejudiced by Peterson’s inaction because, had it\\nknown that injunctive relief was at issue, it would have called additional\\nwitnesses and presented evidence specifically directed to that claim for\\nrelief. However, it had been deprived of that opportunity by the plain-\\ntiff’s failure to raise the issue earlier. Here, the defendants include boil-\\nerplate language that allowing Mr. Neely-Bey to renew his claim for in-\\njunctive relief “would prejudice the defendants by inhibiting their ability\\nto defend against Neely-Bey’s claims and substantially increase the de-\\nfendants’ potential liability.” Appellees’ Br. 32. However, the defendants\\ndo not explain how or why this is the case. Unlike the defendant in Peter-\\nson, they have not lost their ability to present evidence in opposition to\\nthis claim, and they do not explain how revival of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim\\nfor injunctive relief might substantially increase their potential liability.\\n\\f24 No. 17-2980\\n\\n b.\\n Waiver and abandonment are the only bases that the de-\\nfendants have offered for affirming the district court’s dis-\\nmissal of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief. Alt-\\nhough “[w]e may affirm a district court’s dismissal order on\\nany basis supported by the record,” Craig v. Rich Twp. High\\nSch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013), we cannot\\nconclude, on this limited record, that judgment in favor of\\nthe defendants is warranted.\\n To establish a free exercise claim, Mr. Neely-Bey “had to\\nsubmit evidence from which a jury could reasonably find\\nthat the defendants personally and unjustifiably placed a\\nsubstantial burden on his religious practices.” Thompson v.\\nHolm, 809 F.3d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Hernandez v.\\nC.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989)). The Supreme Court has ex-\\nplained that a substantial burden is one that “put[s] substan-\\ntial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to\\nviolate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 718\\n(1981). In the prison context, such a burden is justified if it is\\n“reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.”\\nThompson, 809 F.3d at 380 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,\\n89–91 (1987)).\\n Here, Mr. Neely-Bey asserts, and the defendants do not\\ncontest, that participation in Friday services, including\\nstanding to pray and discussing the words of the Prophet,\\nare central practices of the MSTA faith. The ban enforced by\\nthe CIF prevents Mr. Neely-Bey from fully participating in\\nthe Friday services. The question therefore is whether the\\nban is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 25\\n\\n Mr. Neely-Bey maintains that “the sole reason offered by\\nDefendants for these restrictions was enforcement of a\\nmemorandum from an outside MSTA volunteer minister.” 42\\nAccording to Mr. Neely-Bey, “[i]t was, purely and simply, a\\nreaction to perceived religious heresy,” and the defendants’\\nenforcement of religious orthodoxy “is not a legitimate peno-\\nlogical interest.” 43\\n As we already have discussed, however, this statement\\ndoes not fairly characterize the situation. Brother Doles Bey’s\\nmemo simply does not request that the prison enforce any\\nreligious doctrine. It does not ask the CIF, for instance, to\\nserve MSTA adherents only porkless meals (a requirement\\nof the faith) and to enforce that abstinence through disci-\\npline. Instead, the memo simply requested that the CIF al-\\nlow the MSTA to choose those who may speak authoritative-\\nly on matters of faith. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nassertion, there is evidence in the record to establish that the\\nCIF’s actions were motivated by a desire to protect the rights\\nof other MSTA adherents at the CIF. The memorandum from\\nBrother Doles Bey clearly articulates a concern that, if\\nMr. Neely-Bey, a professed sovereign citizen, were allowed\\nto speak at MSTA services, the congregation of worshippers\\nmight be disbanded. It also refers to the need for the MSTA\\nto conduct the Friday prayer services in accordance with the\\nrequirements of its tradition. 44\\n\\n\\n42 Appellant’s Br. 28.\\n43 Id. at 28–29.\\n44\\n See R.81 at 72 (“The Acting Chairman presides over the[] meetings and\\nmakes sure that the meeting is opened and closed according to the laws\\n (continued … )\\n\\f26 No. 17-2980\\n\\n Although the term “penological interests” is most typi-\\ncally articulated in terms of a penal institution’s interest in\\nsecurity and financial stability, it is well-established that the\\nterm also encompasses far wider concerns of just governance\\nin the penal setting. See, e.g., Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530–\\n32 (2006) (plurality opinion) (holding that encouraging pro-\\ngress toward rehabilitation serves legitimate penological ob-\\njectives); Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 364 (3d Cir. 2006) (not-\\ning that “the health and safety of inmates … are legitimate\\npenological interests”); Goodwin v. Turner, 908 F.2d 1395,\\n1399–1400 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that treating male and fe-\\nmale inmates equally furthered a legitimate penological in-\\nterest). We have no doubt that the term also involves the\\nprotection of the constitutional rights of other prisoners. In-\\ndeed, prison officials are under a constitutional duty to pro-\\ntect those rights. We therefore have no doubt that the prison\\nofficials are on solid ground in maintaining that they have a\\nright, and indeed an obligation, to protect the right of other\\nprisoners who adhere to the MSTA faith to worship in a\\ncongregational manner to the extent that such a practice is\\nconsistent with other penal objectives.\\n Of course, in asserting such an objective and in choosing\\na means to achieve such an objective, Turner v. Safley, 482\\nU.S. 78, 89–90 (1987), teaches that prison officials cannot rely\\non the mere incantation of a penal interest but must come\\nforward with record evidence that substantiates that the in-\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nand Customs of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. and sets\\nthe tone for services to flow smoothly and without [sic] from the\\nbody/membership; and guests.”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 27\\n\\nterest is truly at risk and that prison officials have chosen an\\nappropriate manner to assert that interest. Before us, the de-\\nfendants justify their actions only in terms of the MSTA’s\\nrights without any reference to the possible impact on the\\nsecurity, operations, or finances of the CIF. Under such cir-\\ncumstances, we cannot conclude that the defendants have\\narticulated a legitimate “penological” reason for denying\\nMr. Neely-Bey full participation in MSTA’s Friday services. 45\\n The merits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief\\ntherefore remain an open question. In considering this ques-\\ntion, the district court should not only determine the propri-\\nety of injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause, but\\npossible relief under RLUIPA. We have observed that, when\\na pro se prisoner asserts a claim under the Free Exercise\\nClause, the district court should interpret that constitutional\\nclaim to include a statutory claim under RLUIPA. Grayson,\\n666 F.3d at 451.46 RLUIPA prohibits prison officials from\\n\\n45 In writing the Report of Conduct, Chaplain Smith interpreted\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s actions as intending to interfere with and disrupt MSTA\\nservices on Holy Days. See R.81 at 73. Avoiding disruption of, and inter-\\nference with, the meetings of authorized groups at the CIF is a legitimate\\npenological interest. However, as already discussed, the defendants have\\nnot argued that this was a consideration in the action they took against\\nMr. Neely-Bey.\\n46 Although damages are not available under RLUIPA, injunctive relief\\nis. See Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, because\\nsovereign immunity and qualified immunity protect government offi-\\ncials only from damages suits, those doctrines cannot protect officials\\nfrom claims for injunctive relief brought under RLUIPA. See Sorrentino v.\\nGodinez, 777 F.3d 410, 415 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Sovereign immunity normally\\ndoes not bar suits for injunctive relief in federal court alleging that a state\\nofficial violated the federal constitution or laws.”); Hannemann v. S. Door\\n (continued … )\\n\\f28 No. 17-2980\\n\\n“impos[ing] a substantial burden on the religious exercise”\\nof an inmate “unless the government demonstrates that im-\\nposition of the burden on that person … is the least restric-\\ntive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental inter-\\nest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Because RLUIPA “confers\\ngreater religious rights on prisoners than the free exercise\\nclause has been interpreted to do,” Grayson, 666 F.3d at 451,\\nit is possible that Mr. Neely-Bey is entitled to statutory in-\\njunctive relief even if he cannot establish a right to relief un-\\nder the Free Exercise Clause.\\n A word of caution. On remand, the district court first\\nshould consider whether subsequent events have rendered\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. Prior to\\noral argument, the defendants notified us that\\nMr. Neely-Bey had been transferred from the CIF to the\\nWestville Correctional Facility. At oral argument, counsel for\\nthe defendants suggested that the transfer rendered\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. However,\\nthere is no evidence in the record regarding how\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s transfer will affect his ability to participate\\nin MSTA worship. Moreover, we do not know the likelihood\\nof Mr. Neely-Bey being transferred back to the CIF. See\\nYoung v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 373–74 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting\\nthat the likelihood of being transferred back to an institution\\nis a factual determination for the district court). We leave it,\\ntherefore, to the district court to determine on a more devel-\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nCnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he defense of quali-\\nfied immunity does not protect defendants from an action for injunctive\\nrelief.”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 29\\n\\noped record the effect of Mr. Neely-Bey’s transfer on his\\nclaims for injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause\\nand RLUIPA.\\n In sum, we agree with the district court that the defend-\\nants are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nclaims for damages under the Free Exercise Clause. Howev-\\ner, the district court failed to consider Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nclaims for injunctive relief under either the Free Exercise\\nClause or under RLUIPA. We therefore remand to the dis-\\ntrict court for further consideration of these claims in the\\nfirst instance, including the effect of any subsequent events\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\\nB. Establishment Clause\\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the district court erred\\nin failing to address his Establishment Clause claim. He fur-\\nther asserts that, had the district court considered the claim,\\nit would have concluded that the defendants violated the\\nEstablishment Clause in enforcing Brother Doles Bey’s pro-\\nhibition against his full participation in MSTA meetings.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey is correct that the district court’s order\\ngranting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment did\\nnot explicitly mention the Establishment Clause. However, it\\ndid speak more broadly of whether the defendants’ actions\\nhad violated Mr. Neely-Bey’s “rights under the First\\nAmendment.” 47 It concluded that there was no controlling\\nauthority “directly establishing that the defendants’ conduct\\nin this case, where state officials enforced a ban from partici-\\n\\n\\n47 R.84 at 8.\\n\\f30 No. 17-2980\\n\\npating in religious activities that was put in place by the re-\\nligious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights under\\nthe First Amendment.” 48 It therefore granted qualified im-\\nmunity to the defendants. We turn, therefore, to the question\\nwhether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim under the Establishment Clause.\\n 1.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey submits that, at the time Chaplain Smith\\nlimited his participation in MSTA meetings, it was clear that\\nsuch action violated the Establishment Clause. He begins by\\nnoting that then, as now, “[a] government policy or practice\\nviolates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular pur-\\npose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or\\n(3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.” Kauf-\\nman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing\\nLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971)). According to\\nMr. Neely-Bey, the defendants’ actions violated all three\\nprongs.\\n First, he claims that there is no secular purpose for ban-\\nning him from participating in MSTA Holy Day services. In-\\nstead, he contends, the defendants’ “only reason for impos-\\ning this restriction is a desire to enforce the religious di-\\nrective of an outside volunteer minister, a directive that is\\nbased entirely on religious orthodoxy.”49 We cannot accept\\nthis submission. In determining whether a government ac-\\ntion has a secular purpose, “a government’s characterization\\nof its purpose is entitled to deference, although courts must\\n\\n48 Id. at 7–8.\\n49 Appellant’s Br. 41.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 31\\n\\nensure that the government’s characterization is sincere.”\\nVision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Fairly read, the de-\\nfendants have stated that their reason for giving effect to\\nBrother Doles Bey’s memo was to protect the associational\\nrights of the MSTA to choose, in the context of a religious\\nworship ceremony, participants and leaders of the ob-\\nservance. Chaplain Smith’s directive to Mr. Neely-Bey\\nmakes this objective crystal clear. The directive explicitly\\nrecognizes Mr. Neely-Bey “as a guest of MST of A,” who\\ncould “listen,” but not instruct at MSTA meetings. 50 In pro-\\ntecting the rights of the other prisoners, as was their obliga-\\ntion, the defendants may have reinforced incidentally the\\ntenets of that faith. There is no evidence in the record, how-\\never, their actions were designed to produce such an effect. 51\\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the primary effect of\\nthe action is to advance the orthodoxy of the MSTA. He be-\\nlieves that his situation mirrors the “pernicious fusion” of\\nchurch and state that the Court condemned in Larkin v.\\nGrendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), and Board of Education\\n\\n\\n\\n50 R.81 at 78.\\n51 Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that he is being singled out because of\\nhis religious beliefs. “The restriction imposed by Defendants,”\\nMr. Neely-Bey explains, “which prohibits [him] from speaking or stand-\\ning during Friday Holy Day services while others do so[,] is not based on\\nany neutral or generally applicable rules about conduct or even member-\\nship in religious groups or participation in religious services.” Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 42. It is, however, based on a neutral rule—that religious asso-\\nciations should be able to control their own leadership and membership.\\n\\f32 No. 17-2980\\n\\nof Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687\\n(1994). 52\\n In Larkin, a Massachusetts state law provided that estab-\\nlishments “located within a radius of five hundred feet of a\\nchurch or school shall not be licensed for the sale of alcoholic\\nbeverages if the governing body of such church or school\\nfile[d] [a] written objection” to the license. 459 U.S. at 117 (in-\\nternal quotation marks omitted). The Court determined that\\nthe statute resulted in an unconstitutional cessation of gov-\\nernmental authority to a religious institution:\\n Section 16C gives churches the right to deter-\\n mine whether a particular applicant will be\\n granted a liquor license, or even which one of\\n several competing applicants will receive a li-\\n cense.\\n The churches’ power under the statute is\\n standardless, calling for no reasons, findings,\\n or reasoned conclusions. That power may\\n therefore be used by churches to promote goals\\n beyond insulating the church from undesirable\\n neighbors; it could be employed for explicitly\\n religious goals, for example, favoring liquor li-\\n censes for members of that congregation or\\n adherents of that faith.\\nId. at 125. It therefore did “not strain” the Court’s “prior\\nholdings to say that the statute can be seen as having a ‘pri-\\nmary’ and ‘principal’ effect of advancing religion.” Id. at 126.\\n\\n\\n52 Id. at 44.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 33\\n\\n Similarly, in Kiryas Joel Village School District, a special\\nstate law had created a school district, the lines of which\\nwere the same as the lines of property owned by a Hasidic\\nJewish congregation. The result was that the provision of\\npublic educational services within a district had been\\nawarded based on religious views and was completely con-\\ntrolled by a religious body. The Court observed that the Free\\nExercise and Establishment Clauses “‘compel[] the State to\\npursue a course of “neutrality” toward religion,’ favoring\\nneither one religion over others nor religious adherents col-\\nlectively over nonadherents.” Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill.\\nSch. Dist., 512 U.S. at 696 (quoting Comm. for Pub. Ed. & Reli-\\ngious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 792–93 (1973)). The\\nstatute at issue, the Court explained, “depart[ed] from this\\nconstitutional command by delegating the State’s discretion-\\nary authority over public schools to a group defined by its\\ncharacter as a religious community, in a legal and historical\\ncontext that gives no assurance that governmental power\\nhas been or will be exercised neutrally.” Id.\\n In both Larken and Kiryas Joel Village School District, there-\\nfore, a formal enactment ceded a discretionary function of\\ngovernance to a religious body. The CIF, however, has not\\nceded disciplinary authority to the MSTA. The CIF has not\\ngiven the MSTA the power to discipline an MSTA member\\nif, for instance, the member fails to attend Friday services.\\nInstead, the MSTA asked the CIF defendants to protect its\\nright to control the religious content of the MSTA’s own\\nmeetings by determining who may or may not teach its con-\\ngregants. Here, a religious entity has not been given carte\\nblanche to administer a government program or bestow a\\ngovernment benefit as it sees fit.\\n\\f34 No. 17-2980\\n\\n Finally, Mr. Neely-Bey submits that the CIF’s enforce-\\nment of Brother Doles Bey’s memo violates the entangle-\\nment prong of the Lemon test. To establish excessive entan-\\nglement with religion, Mr. Neely-Bey has to “demonstrate\\n‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of\\nthe sovereign in religious activity.’” Vision Church, 468 F.3d\\nat 995 (quoting Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equaliza-\\ntion of California, 493 U.S. 378, 393 (1990)). “The general rule\\nis that, to constitute excessive entanglement, the government\\naction must involve ‘intrusive government participation in,\\nsupervision of, or inquiry into religious affairs.’” Id. (quoting\\nUnited States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 631\\n(7th Cir. 2000)).\\n Mr. Neely-Bey does not address these standards or sug-\\ngest how the evidence in the record establishes the level of\\nintrusiveness required for entanglement. Instead, he submits\\nthat Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009), necessitates\\nsuch a finding of entanglement.\\n In Nelson, an Illinois inmate had requested a meatless di-\\net on Fridays as an act of penance in accordance with his\\nCatholic faith. The correctional facility’s chaplain, Miller, re-\\nviewed the request, “cross-checking the inmate’s declared\\nreligious affiliation to determine if a religious diet was re-\\nquired”; specifically, he “looked for confirmation of the reli-\\ngious dietary tenet ‘on paper’—that is, he looked for confir-\\nmation of the requirement in some ‘church document’—as\\nopposed to inquiring regarding the spiritual goals of the in-\\nmate.” Id. at 872. The prison chaplain denied the request,\\nand, in his denial, he “cited several Bible passages purport-\\nedly contradicting Nelson’s beliefs regarding penance.” Id. at\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 35\\n\\n881. Eventually, at the direction of the warden, Nelson re-\\nceived a vegan diet.\\n Nelson filed an action against Miller and several other\\nadministrators at the correctional facility, alleging, among\\nother claims, a violation of the Establishment Clause. Specif-\\nically, Nelson alleged that Miller had “favored Muslim and\\nAfrican Hebrew Israelite prisoners by approving vegan diets\\nfor those prisoners without obtaining written verification\\nthat such diets were required by their religions.” Id. at 880–\\n81. The district court, however, “found that Nelson had not\\nproven a violation of the establishment clause because there\\nwere valid neutral reasons for Miller’s actions in this re-\\ngard.” Id. at 881. On appeal, we agreed with the district\\ncourt. We explained that the correctional facility’s regula-\\ntions\\n provided that prisoners could abstain from\\n “any foods the consumption of which violates\\n their required religious tenets” and the district\\n court concluded that Miller had required doc-\\n umentation because he was unfamiliar with\\n any Catholic “required religious tenet” which\\n necessitated a non-meat diet. Under the district\\n court’s reasoning, Miller did not ask Muslim\\n and African Hebrew Israelite prisoners to\\n submit verification because he understood\\n from his experience that a limited diet was part\\n of many of these prisoners’ religious practice.\\nId.\\n Nevertheless, we observed, Miller’s denial, which “cited\\nseveral Bible passages purportedly contradicting Nelson’s\\n\\f36 No. 17-2980\\n\\nbeliefs regarding penance, improperly entangled [Miller] in\\nmatters of religious interpretation. It simply [wa]s not ap-\\npropriate for a prison official to argue with a prisoner re-\\ngarding the objective truth of a prisoner’s religious belief.”\\nId.\\n We fail to see Nelson’s application to the circumstances\\nhere. Chaplain Smith did not undertake his own review of\\nMSTA doctrine. Rather, he was told by the MSTA minister at\\nthe CIF, Brother Doles Bey, 53 that Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession\\nof sovereign citizenship 54 precluded him from full member-\\nship and participation in the MSTA. This tension between\\nthe tenets of the MSTA and the sovereign-citizen movement\\nis well documented in our case law. See Bey v. State, 847 F.3d\\n559, 560–61 (7th Cir. 2017). Chaplain Smith accepted the\\nstatement of the MSTA representative; he made no commen-\\ntary at all concerning the “objective truth” of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s beliefs. He simply forbade him from dis-\\nrupting the MSTA service.\\n In sum, at the very least, Chaplain Smith did not act in a\\nmanner inconsistent with existing precedent. See al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. at 741. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment granting qualified immunity to the defendants on\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the Establish-\\nment Clause.\\n\\n\\n\\n53 Again, there is no question that Brother Doles Bey is the designated\\nrepresentative of the MSTA at the CIF. See supra note 9.\\n54As noted previously, see supra note 8, Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession of\\nsovereign-citizen beliefs is not at issue here.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 37\\n\\n 2.\\n As we already have noted, qualified immunity protects\\nthe defendants only against claims for damages; it does not\\nprotect the defendants against claims for injunctive relief. See\\nHannemann, 673 F.3d at 758. The district court failed to rec-\\nognize Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief and,\\ntherefore, never addressed the merits of those claims. On\\nappeal, the defendants, as well, have failed to address the\\nmerits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under\\nthe Establishment Clause. They simply maintain that\\nMr. Neely-Bey has waived or abandoned any claims for in-\\njunctive relief—a contention we already have rejected.\\n If the record contained any evidence that might support\\nthe granting of injunctive relief, we would vacate the district\\ncourt’s judgment in this respect and remand for further pro-\\nceedings. However, as our earlier discussion of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s Establishment Clause argument demon-\\nstrates, the record is entirely devoid of any evidence that\\nmight form the basis for such a claim. Consequently, the dis-\\ntrict court need not revisit the matter of injunctive relief on\\nremand.\\n Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages\\nunder the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. We also\\ndirect the district court to enter judgment for the defendants\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Es-\\ntablishment Clause. However, we remand the case to the\\ndistrict court for it to consider, in the first instance,\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Free\\n\\f38 No. 17-2980\\n\\nExercise Clause and under RLUIPA. In undertaking this\\ntask, the district court first should ensure that the controver-\\nsy has not become moot.\\n The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.\\n AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355554/\", \"author_raw\": \"Kenneth Francis Ripple\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578301/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Derrick D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel L. CONLEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-2980\nDERRICK D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nDANIEL L. CONLEY, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 1:15-cv-01522-WTL-DML — William T. Lawrence, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Derrick D. Neely-Bey Tarik-El filed\nthis action against various officials at the Correctional Indus-\ntrial Facility (“CIF”) in Pendleton, Indiana, and at the Indi-\nana Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). He alleged that\nthe defendants had prevented him from participating fully\nin the worship services of the Moorish Science Temple of\nAmerica (“MSTA”) held at the CIF, in violation of the Free\nExercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.\n\f2 No. 17-2980\n\nThe district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1915A. It dismissed claims against Commissioner Bruce\nLemmon and Superintendent Wendy Knight on Eleventh\nAmendment grounds and against Officer David Liebel on\nthe ground that he had not participated personally in any of\nthe actions against Mr. Neely-Bey. The district court allowed\nthe damages claims against the remaining defendants to go\nforward. Following discovery, the remaining defendants\nmoved for summary judgment on qualified immunity\ngrounds. The district court granted the motion.\n Before us, Mr. Neely-Bey contends that the district court\nfailed to recognize that his complaint sought both damages\nand injunctive relief. He maintains that his injunctive relief\nclaims must be reinstated because they are unaffected by\nsovereign or qualified immunity. Moreover, he contends\nthat the district court erred in granting qualified immunity\nto the defendants on his damages claims.\n We conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified\nimmunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the\nFree Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause and,\ntherefore, affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to\nthose claims. We agree with Mr. Neely-Bey that the district\ncourt misread his complaint and that it clearly seeks injunc-\ntive relief as well as damages against the defendants. More-\nover, the district court should have read Mr. Neely-Bey’s pro\nse free exercise claim as seeking injunctive relief under the\nReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42\nU.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”). Consequently, we must\nremand so that the district court may consider whether in-\njunctive relief should be granted on the free exercise claim.\nIn addressing this matter, the district court first must deter-\n\fNo. 17-2980 3\n\nmine whether the free exercise claim and RLUIPA claims are\nmoot. If it determines that the claims are not moot, it should\nconsider whether injunctive relief is warranted. As a matter\nof law, there is no basis for injunctive relief on the estab-\nlishment clause claims, and we therefore direct the district\ncourt to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on those\nclaims.\n I\n BACKGROUND\n A.\n Until recently, Mr. Neely-Bey was incarcerated at CIF,\nwhere he was an active member of the MSTA congregation.\nThe MSTA is a national religious organization founded by\nProphet Noble Drew Ali. 1 Its most important group worship\nmeeting is held on Fridays and includes recitation of the\nMoorish American Prayer, during which each adherent\n“stands, [and] faces the East.” 2 After the prayer, a group\nleader reads the Divine Constitution, Bylaws, and verses\nfrom the Koran. Following the readings, the leader invites\nother participants to comment upon the readings. Finally,\nservices conclude with the “Warning from the Holy Proph-\net” followed by another recitation of the Moorish American\nPrayer.3 The MSTA also holds “Sunday School.” 4 During\n\n\n1 R.81 at 97.\n2 Id. at 98.\n3 Id.\n4It appears that, at some point, the MSTA group at CIF began meeting\non Mondays instead of Sundays. See id. at 78 (Memo from Chaplain\n (continued … )\n\f4 No. 17-2980\n\n2013 and 2014, Mr. Neely-Bey attended Friday Holy Day\nservices and Sunday school. The records of the MSTA reflect\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey regularly spoke at these meetings. 5\n In January 2013, Mr. Neely-Bey submitted an affidavit to\nIDOC Commissioner Lemmon. The cover letter stated that\nMr. Neely-Bey was providing the affidavit to Commission-\ner Lemmon “so that we may come to an understanding\n[that] this affidavit is [b]inding on you and you[r] office.” 6 It\nasserted that Mr. Neely-Bey was a “Sovereign Moorish Na-\ntional”; that he was not subject to the enactments of the\nUnited States Congress because he considered it to be a for-\neign power; and that he “squarely challenge[d] the fraudu-\nlent, usurping entanglement of JURISDICTION” over him. 7\nThe affidavit requested a hearing to establish the IDOC’s au-\nthority over Mr. Neely-Bey. As a result of the affidavit, the\nIDOC classified Mr. Neely-Bey as a “Sovereign Citizen,”\nwhich was designated as a “Security Threat Group.” 8\n\n\n( … continued)\nSmith setting forth how Mr. Neely-Bey may participate in “Monday\nmeetings”).\n5 See R.40; R.41; R.42.\n6 R.70-3 at 2.\n7 See id. at 3–4 (internal quotation marks omitted).\n8 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey claims that “the record does not support\nthat he subscribed to such ‘sovereign citizen’ beliefs or that he intended\nto associate himself with such beliefs by identifying himself as a ‘Sover-\neign Moorish National.’” Appellant’s Br. 9. However, there is no evi-\ndence in the record that Mr. Neely-Bey contested or grieved this designa-\ntion. Mr. Neely-Bey also does not maintain that sovereign citizens should\nnot be considered a Security Threat Group. Thus, neither\n (continued … )\n\fNo. 17-2980 5\n\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s affidavit made its way to Brother M.\nDoles Bey, 9 the MSTA minister who led the services at the\nCIF.10 On April 6, 2014, Brother Doles Bey sent a memoran-\ndum on MSTA letterhead to, among others, David Liebel,\nDirector of Religious and Volunteer Services Chaplains at\nthe CIF; Brother V. Jones-Bey, Minister of Institutional Mis-\nsion Affairs for the MSTA; and Mr. Neely-Bey. In his memo-\nrandum, Brother Doles Bey explained that sovereign citizens\ncould not be participating members of the MSTA. The memo\nrelated that, at another institution, the MSTA had allowed an\ninmate with a “Security Group Threat” designation to facili-\ntate a service, and as a result, the institution’s MSTA group\n“was shut down.” 11 Brother Doles Bey stated that\n\n( … continued)\nMr. Neely-Bey’s classification as a sovereign citizen, his designation as a\nmember of a Security Threat Group, nor the restrictions placed on Secu-\nrity Threat Groups are at issue in this appeal.\n9 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey repeatedly addresses Brother Doles Bey as a\n“volunteer minister,” suggesting that all of his ministry work is volun-\ntary and that he is not an official representative of the MSTA. The record\ndoes not bear this out. In his complaint, Mr. Neely-Bey identifies Brother\nDoles Bey as “the Minister & I.D.O.C. volunteer of the Moorish Science\nTemple of America.” R.1 at 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, according to\nIDOC policies, a volunteer like Brother Doles Bey must be “recognized\nby a religious body.” R.81 at 37.\n10 Mr. Neely-Bey alleges in his complaint that IDOC Commissioner\nLemmon forwarded the affidavit to the Director of Religious Services,\nDavid Liebel. R.1 at 3. Mr. Liebel presumably then passed it on to Broth-\ner Doles Bey, although there is not an allegation in the complaint to that\neffect. Neither party identifies any evidence in the record that establishes\nhow the affidavit reached Brother Doles Bey.\n11 R.81 at 71.\n\f6 No. 17-2980\n\nMr. Neely-Bey could attend services as a “guest,” but that he\ncould not teach or serve as a facilitator. 12\n On March 23, 2015, the Chaplain at the CIF, David Smith,\nsent a memo to Mr. Neely-Bey in which he stated that he\nhad “received [Mr. Neely-Bey’s] request to be added to the\nMST of A Religious Services group” and that he needed\nMr. Neely-Bey “to understand that by returning to this\ngroup you agree to fully cooperate with and follow the April\n6, 2014 sanctions placed on you by MST of A, Inc.” 13 Specifi-\ncally, Mr. Neely-Bey was forbidden from standing, speaking\nat, or facilitating any of the Friday services. He was allowed\nto speak when called upon during their Monday meetings;\nhowever, he could “not debate, instruct, dominate or speak\nagainst the teaching of the Prophet, the MST of A, Inc., or the\nU.S. Constitution.” 14\n In late summer 2015, Chaplain Smith filed a “Report of\nConduct” regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s actions during an\nMSTA meeting. Chaplain Smith stated that he had witnessed\nMr. Neely-Bey “speak and openly participate during the\nFriday MSTA Holy Day meeting” and that these actions\nwere in violation of the direct order that he had given to\nMr. Neely-Bey, orally and in writing. 15 Chaplain Smith con-\ncluded that Mr. Neely-Bey’s “actions … demonstrated his\n\n12 Id. at 72.\n13Id. at 78. The parties do not explain why Mr. Neely-Bey, who had been\nan active member of the MSTA in 2013 and 2014, had to request to be\nadded to the group in 2015.\n14 Id.\n15 Id. at 73.\n\fNo. 17-2980 7\n\nintention to interfere and disrupt MSTA services on Holy\nDays.” 16\n Officer Daniel Conley “screened” the conduct report,17\nand a hearing was held at Mr. Neely-Bey’s request. At the\nhearing, chaired by Officer Richard Sidwell, it was deter-\nmined that Mr. Neely-Bey had ignored an order by Chaplain\nSmith. Mr. Neely-Bey was given twenty hours of extra work\nto be completed in the next month. Although the determina-\ntion makes no mention of it, Mr. Neely-Bey testified at his\ndeposition, and the defendants conceded for purposes of\nsummary judgment, that Mr. Neely-Bey “was suspended\nfrom [MSTA] meetings for one year.”18\n Mr. Neely-Bey appealed to CIF Superintendent, Wendy\nKnight. He argued that the sanction merely enforced the\nMSTA’s ban on his participation in its services. Consequent-\nly, because “the State cannot get [in]volved in M.S.T. of A.\naffairs,” 19 the order could not be enforced. Mr. Neely-Bey’s\nappeal was denied. In her explanation, Superintendent\nKnight stated:\n\n\n\n16 Id.\n17 Again, the parties do not direct us to any place in the record contain-\ning a description of the screening function. In admissions produced in\nresponse to Mr. Neely-Bey’s requests, Officer Conley stated that he “had\nreservation[s] about the conduct report.” Id. at 22. Neither in the admis-\nsion, nor in any other place in the record, does Officer Conley explain the\nnature of his reservations.\n18 R.71 at 1.\n19 R.81 at 76.\n\f8 No. 17-2980\n\n You were charged with code 347 “Refusing to\n obey an order from staff” and you were found\n guilty by the DHB chairman.\n I find the Report of Conduct to be descriptive\n and credible, and the statement provided by\n staff within the body of the report did support\n the finding. When any staff member gives you\n an order, you need to follow it. After you have\n followed the staff member’s order, if you do\n not agree with that order or any order from\n staff, then you have a right to follow the de-\n partment’s grievance procedures. I find no er-\n rors in your case and the Report of Conduct is\n clear. You have provided me with no state-\n ments or evidence to cause me to change the\n decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer,\n therefore: your appeal is denied.[ 20]\n B.\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed this action in the district court\nagainst Commissioner Lemmon, Superintendent Knight, Di-\nrector of Religious Services David Liebel, Chaplain Smith,\nOfficer Conley, and Officer Sidwell. He alleged that he had\nbeen subjected to religious persecution when his affidavit\nwas forwarded to the MSTA, that the CIF had become en-\ntangled in a religious dispute by enforcing the memorandum\nof Brother Doles Bey, and that the CIF defendants had vio-\nlated his First Amendment right to free exercise when Broth-\ner Doles Bey’s memo was enforced. As a remedy,\n\n20 Id. at 77.\n\fNo. 17-2980 9\n\nMr. Neely-Bey requested “that [he] receive $750,000 dollars”\nand that the defendants “cease all action against [him].” 21\n The district court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 22 The court determined that any\nclaims for damages against Commissioner Lemmon and Su-\nperintendent Knight in their official capacities were barred\nby the Eleventh Amendment and therefore dismissed those\nclaims. It also dismissed the claims against Mr. Liebel be-\ncause he was not involved personally in the alleged depriva-\ntion. The court therefore instructed the clerk “to remove\nBruce Lemmon, Wendy Knight, and David Liebel from the\ndocket.” 23 The court allowed the damages claims against\nChaplain Smith, Officer Conley, and Officer Sidwell to pro-\nceed. The court’s screening order was silent with respect to\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider. 24 He argued\nthat the Eleventh Amendment did not bar his claims against\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight because\nthe claims were brought against the defendants in both their\n\n\n21 R.1 at 6.\n22 The district court initially dismissed Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, be-\nlieving that it was duplicative of another action that Mr. Neely-Bey had\nfiled. See R.8. Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider, pointing out\nthat the disciplinary action on which the present action is based is differ-\nent from the ones at issue in the earlier action. See R.10. The court grant-\ned the motion to reconsider and conducted a merits screening under 28\nU.S.C. § 1915A. See R.13.\n23 R.13 at 3.\n24 See R.17.\n\f10 No. 17-2980\n\nofficial capacities and their personal capacities.25\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue, however, that the district court\nshould reinstate his claims for injunctive relief because sov-\nereign immunity did not operate as a bar to injunctive relief.\nThe district court denied reconsideration “[f]or the reasons\nset forth in the screening entry.”26\n After discovery, the remaining defendants moved for\nsummary judgment. Relying on Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,\n530 U.S. 640 (2000), the defendants submitted that it was\nclearly established that the MSTA had a First Amendment\nright to choose its membership, and the sanction against\nMr. Neely-Bey simply implemented that right. According to\nthe defendants, “failure to enforce the MST of A memoran-\ndum would be the equivalent of forcing the MST of A to as-\nsociate with Neely-Bey as a member in violation of MST of\nA’s First Amendment rights.” 27 Moreover, once the MSTA\ndetermined that Mr. Neely-Bey could not participate in its\nservices, IDOC was “prohibited from reviewing or question-\ning [its] religious decisions.” 28\n The defendants also asserted that, if they had violated\nMr. Neely-Bey’s rights, they were entitled to qualified im-\nmunity. They noted that a “diligent search of Seventh Circuit\nand United States Supreme Court cases ha[d] yielded no\n\n25He also argued that his claim against Mr. Liebel should be reinstated.\nSee id. at 2.\n26 R.19.\n27 R.71 at 8.\n28Id. at 7 (citing Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v.\nEEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 186 (2012)).\n\fNo. 17-2980 11\n\ncases with closely analogous facts that would establish that\nPlaintiffs’ [sic] rights have been violated in this case.” 29\nTherefore, Mr. Neely-Bey had not met his burden of defeat-\ning the qualified immunity defense.\n In response, Mr. Neely-Bey maintained that IDOC’s en-\nforcement of the limitations set forth in MSTA’s memoran-\ndum violated the Establishment Clause and violated IDOC’s\nown policies. 30 Regarding the defendants’ claim that they\nwere enforcing MSTA’s associational rights, Mr. Neely-Bey\nbelieved that Dale was distinguishable because he was not\nasking to be appointed a leader of the MSTA, but only to\nparticipate fully in the services.\n Turning to the issue of qualified immunity,\nMr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that\nIDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex-\ncept when required by penological interests. Mr. Neely-Bey\nexplained that participating in the Friday services was a key\nelement of the MSTA faith, that Chaplain Smith understood\nthis, and that disciplining him for participating in the Friday\nservices constituted an unreasonable burden on his free ex-\nercise rights. He also claimed that the defendants had no le-\ngitimate penological interests in preventing his participation\nin Friday services. Turning specifically to Officers Conley\nand Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey noted that Officer Conley admit-\n\n\n29 Id. at 11.\n30 Mr. Neely-Bey specifically identified the policy providing that “[t]he\nDepartment does not endorse or recognize any particular denomination,\nsect, or faction as the ‘correct’ manner to practice a particular religion.”\nSee R.81 at 6.\n\f12 No. 17-2980\n\nted that he had reservations about Chaplain Smith’s conduct\nreport, but nevertheless screened the conduct report. As for\nOfficer Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that, at the time of\nthe disciplinary hearing, Officer Sidwell was aware that the\ndispute was of a religious as opposed to disciplinary nature.\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue that, even if the doctrine of\nqualified immunity protected the defendants from liability\nfor damages, his claims for injunctive relief nevertheless\ncould proceed.\n The district court granted summary judgment to the re-\nmaining defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. The\ncourt explained that, although “[t]he general principles of\nFirst Amendment law prohibiting officials from placing a\nsubstantial burden on the free exercise of religion by inmates\nare clearly established, … the qualified immunity defense\nturns on whether the application of those principles to the\ncircumstances faced by the defendants was clear at the\ntime.” 31 “Here,” the court explained, Mr. Neely-Bey could\nnot “prevail in his effort to overcome qualified immunity by\nrelying on general principles of First Amendment right[s]”\nbecause “[t]he Supreme Court has directed that ‘“clearly es-\ntablished” law is not to be defined at a high level of generali-\nty.’” 32 The court therefore entered judgment for the defend-\nants.\n\n\n\n\n31 R.84 at 7.\n32 Id. (quoting White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017)).\n\fNo. 17-2980 13\n\n II\n DISCUSSION\nA. Free Exercise\n 1. Claim for Damages\n Mr. Neely-Bey first submits that the district court erred\nin concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified\nimmunity for damages related to his free exercise claim. The\nprinciples governing this question are well-settled. Qualified\nimmunity shields government officials from civil “liability\n‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per-\nson would have known.’” Purvis v. Oest, 614 F.3d 713, 720\n(7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818\n(1982)). A qualified immunity determination comprises two\ninquiries; we must determine (1) “whether the plaintiff’s al-\nlegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right,”\nand (2) “whether the right was clearly established at the time\nof defendant’s alleged misconduct.” McAllister v. Price, 615\nF.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010). We are permitted to skip the\nfirst inquiry and proceed directly to the question whether a\nparticular right was clearly established. See, e.g., Whitlock v.\nBrown, 596 F.3d 406, 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pearson v. Cal-\nlahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). This is the approach that the dis-\ntrict court took, and the defendants urge that we affirm the\ndistrict court’s judgment on this basis.\n As we frequently have explained, a clearly established\nright is one that “is sufficiently clear that any reasonable of-\nficial would understand that his or her actions violate that\nright, meaning that existing precedent must have placed the\nstatutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Zim-\n\f14 No. 17-2980\n\nmerman v. Doran, 807 F.3d 178, 182 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015)). “[A] case directly\non point,” however, is not required. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). “The dispositive question is ‘whether\nthe violative nature of particular conduct is clearly estab-\nlished … .’” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (quoting al-Kidd, 563\nU.S. at 742). “This inquiry ‘“must be undertaken in light of the\nspecific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”’”\nId. (emphasis added) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.\n194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)).\n Here, the district court observed that there was no gov-\nerning law “directly establishing that the defendants’ con-\nduct in this case, where state officials enforced a ban from\nparticipating in religious activities that was put in place by\nthe religious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights\nunder the First Amendment.” 33 Mr. Neely-Bey believes,\nhowever, that the law “provided ‘fair warning’ to the de-\nfendants ‘that their alleged [conduct] was unconstitution-\nal.’” 34 According to Mr. Neely-Bey, the law was clearly es-\ntablished that a prison official cannot deny a prisoner’s free\nexercise rights based on the official’s understanding of the\ntenets of a particular faith. He relies principally on Grayson\nv. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012), and Vinning-El v. Ev-\nans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011), for this proposition.\n In Grayson, an inmate-adherent of the African Hebrew Is-\nraelites of Jerusalem was forced to cut off his dreadlocks “on\n\n\n33 R.84 at 7–8.\n34 Appellant’s Br. 35–36 (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866\n(2014) (per curiam)).\n\fNo. 17-2980 15\n\nthe ground that they posed a security risk.” 666 F.3d at 451.\nGrayson claimed that not cutting his hair was an element of\nhis faith; specifically, he informed prison officials that he had\ntaken “the Nazarite vow of separation,” which required him\nto refrain from cutting his hair. Id. at 454. The prison chap-\nlain denied Grayson’s request to grow out his hair because\nwearing dreadlocks was not a required element of the Afri-\ncan Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. The chaplain acknowl-\nedged that Rastafarians were allowed to have dreadlocks,\nbut distinguished their situation because having dreadlocks\nwas a requirement of their faith. On appeal, we observed\nthat Grayson’s act of not cutting his hair could have been a\nlegitimate aspect of his personal faith. We explained that\n“[p]rison authorities are always entitled to balance security\nconcerns against religious practices, and the need to do so\nmay be greater with regard to optional than to mandatory\npractices.” Id. at 455. Nevertheless,\n [p]rison chaplains may not determine which\n religious observances are permissible because\n orthodox. … No more can the prison permit\n Rastafarians to wear long hair and without jus-\n tification forbid a sincere African Hebrew Isra-\n elite of Jerusalem to do so, even if he is more\n zealous in his religious observances than his\n religion requires him to be.\nId.\n We reached a similar result in Vinning-El. Vinning-El in-\nvolved an MSTA inmate who asked for a vegan diet as a re-\nligious accommodation. The chaplain denied the request,\n“observing that the tenets of [the MSTA] require a non-pork\ndiet,” not a vegan one. 657 F.3d at 592. Vinning-El sued, and\n\f16 No. 17-2980\n\nthe district court denied the chaplain qualified immunity.\nOn appeal, we observed that the district court had not made\nany findings concerning the chaplain’s motivations in deny-\ning Vinning-El’s request. The chaplain could have denied\nthe request because he did not believe that a vegan diet was\na tenet of the MSTA faith, or he could have denied it because\nhe did not believe that the request was being made on reli-\ngious grounds. If the former, the chaplain was not entitled to\nqualified immunity because it was clearly established at the\ntime of the denial that “[a] personal religious faith is entitled\nto as much protection as one espoused by an organized\ngroup.” Id. at 593. However, if the latter, then the chaplain\nhad not violated the inmate’s rights because mere dietary\npreferences, unrelated to religious observances, need not be\naccommodated. Absent a determination as to the chaplain’s\nreasoning, we could not resolve the qualified immunity\nquestion and therefore remanded the case to the district\ncourt. See id. at 595.\n Neither Grayson nor Vinning-El speak to the circumstanc-\nes before us today. In both cases, the individual inmate re-\nquested that his religious belief be accommodated even\nthough that belief was arguably personal to him and more\ndemanding than the ones generally followed by adherents of\nthe religion with which he professed to be affiliated.\nMr. Neely-Bey presents a very different situation. He does\nnot ask the CIF to accommodate a personal belief not re-\nquired of MSTA adherents. Rather, he asks that the CIF re-\nquire the MSTA to accept him as a full member even though\nhis belief system as a declared sovereign citizen differs sub-\nstantially from that of the MSTA and MSTA liturgical prac-\ntices require that its adherents share their religious beliefs in\nthe course of their worship services. The MSTA consequent-\n\fNo. 17-2980 17\n\nly believes that admitting Mr. Neely-Bey as a member would\nchallenge its teachings and, possibly, jeopardize its status.\n This is the crux of the defendants’ position: They main-\ntain that, had they required the MSTA to allow Mr. Neely-\nBey to participate as a full member in Friday services, they\nwould have violated MSTA’s associational rights. See Boy\nScouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).\n In Dale, a former Eagle Scout “applied for adult member-\nship in the Boy Scouts” as an assistant scoutmaster. Id. at\n644. The BSA initially approved the application, but later re-\nvoked his membership after discovering that Dale was ho-\nmosexual and had taken public stances in favor of gay\nrights. According to the BSA, being a homosexual was anti-\nthetical to its mission. Dale then instituted a state-court ac-\ntion claiming that the BSA’s revocation of his membership\nviolated New Jersey’s law prohibiting discrimination in pub-\nlic accommodations. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed\nwith Dale and further held that requiring BSA to accept Dale\nas a scout leader did not violate BSA’s right to association\nunder the First Amendment.\n The Supreme Court reversed. It observed that “[t]he\nforced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes\nthe group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence\nof that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability\nto advocate public or private viewpoints.” Id. at 648. In as-\nsessing whether this was the case, the Court explained that\ndeference is owed to the group’s formulation of its “goals\nand philosophy,” as well as its “view of what would impair\nits expression.” Id. at 651, 653. Because the BSA believed that\nits principles precluded the practice of homosexuality and\nbecause “Dale’s presence in the [BSA] would … force the or-\n\f18 No. 17-2980\n\nganization to send a message … that [it] accepts homosexual\nconduct as a legitimate form of behavior,” “the forced inclu-\nsion of Dale would significantly affect its expression.” Id. at\n653, 656.\n Mr. Neely-Bey believes that the defendants’ reliance on\nDale is misplaced. Dale, he contends, was in a leadership\nrole, whereas he only was asking to participate as a member\nof the MSTA. The Court in Dale, however, did not limit its\ndiscussion to leaders of organizations, but instead asked\nwhether “[t]he forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a\ngroup infringes the group’s freedom of expressive associa-\ntion.” Id. at 648. Although the relative position of the indi-\nvidual in a group may bear on whether the group’s inclusion\nof the individual “affects in a significant way the group’s\nability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” id., the\nCourt spoke in terms of “membership” as well as leadership,\nsee id. at 654–56. Moreover, the record reflects that, as a full\nmember of the MSTA, Mr. Neely-Bey would be speaking to\nother members of the congregation and commenting on the\nwords of the Prophet and passages of the Koran. Requiring\nthe MSTA to allow an individual to speak at its worship ser-\nvices when that person holds beliefs antithetical to its own\nwould significantly affect its ability to preserve and pass on\nits message.\n Here, Chaplain Smith and the enforcement officers were\nrequired to balance the religious practices of one adherent\nagainst the rights of other inmates to exercise their religious\nbeliefs in accordance with MSTA teaching. Neither Grayson\nnor Vinning-El offers guidance for correctional officers who\nfind themselves in this dilemma. Indeed, there do not appear\nto be any cases that instruct prison officials on how they\n\fNo. 17-2980 19\n\nshould strike the appropriate balance between these compet-\ning interests. 35 As we have explained previously, “[p]ublic\nofficials can be held liable for violating clearly established\nlaw, but not for choosing sides on a debatable issue.” O’Keefe\nv. Chisholm, 769 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2014). The district\ncourt, therefore, did not err in granting the defendants quali-\nfied immunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s damages claims under\nthe Free Exercise Clause. 36\n 2. Claim for Injunctive Relief\n Mr. Neely-Bey next submits that, even if the district court\ncorrectly granted qualified immunity to the defendants on\nhis claim for damages, it failed to recognize that his com-\nplaint also stated a claim for injunctive relief under both the\nFree Exercise Clause and under RLUIPA. Moreover,\nMr. Neely-Bey continues, qualified immunity does not pro-\ntect the defendants from a claim for injunctive relief. See\nHannemann v. S. Door Cnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th\nCir. 2012). Consequently, he contends, a remand is necessary\n\n\n35 Indeed, Mr. Neely-Bey notes that “Defendants have cited no decision\nsuggesting the government can rely on a group’s associational interests\nto limit an individual’s participation in religious services, based solely on\nhis expression of allegedly unorthodox beliefs.” Appellant’s Br. 31. That\ncourts have not had to grapple with this difficult issue would seem to\ncounsel the application of qualified immunity.\n36 Notably, the defendants make only a passing reference to whether\nallowing Mr. Neely-Bey to participate as a full member of the religion\nwould jeopardize the security or rehabilitative concerns of the institu-\ntion. For reasons not at all clear to us, with the exception of this single,\noblique reference in its appellate brief, this contention, which may well\nhave merit, is never developed.\n\f20 No. 17-2980\n\nfor the district court to consider the merits of his claim for\ninjunctive relief.\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, among other relief, asks that\nthe defendants “cease all action against [him].” 37 When the\ndistrict court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint under 28\nU.S.C. § 1915A, it nevertheless acknowledged only that he\nwas “seek[ing] monetary relief”; the court made no mention\nof Mr. Neely-Bey’s prayer for injunctive relief. 38 Proceeding\non the assumption that Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims were for\nmonetary relief alone, the court dismissed the claims against\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight in their\nofficial capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and\ndirected that these defendants be removed from the docket.\nThe court allowed only the damages claims against Chaplain\nSmith and Officers Conley and Sidwell to go forward.\nMr. Neely-Bey moved for reconsideration of the screening\norder, but not on the ground that the district court had mis-\nread his complaint to include only claims for damages.\n a.\n Before us, the defendants at least tacitly acknowledge\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint requested injunctive relief. 39\nThey assert, however, that Mr. Neely-Bey abandoned his\nclaim for injunctive relief by not raising the issue in his mo-\n\n\n37 R.1 at 6.\n38 R.13 at 2.\n39 See Appellees’ Br. 28 (noting that the district court believed that\nMr. Neely-Bey was seeking only damages and acknowledging that “this\nassumption may have been a mistake”).\n\fNo. 17-2980 21\n\ntion to reconsider or in his response to the motion for sum-\nmary judgment.\n It is the general rule that a litigant does not abandon an\nargument by failing to raise it in a motion to reconsider.\nHamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 897 F.3d 835, 838\n(7th Cir. 2018) (“And it is never necessary to remonstrate\nwith a judge after an order has been entered. Motions for re-\nconsideration are discretionary, not obligatory.”). The de-\nfendants nevertheless submit that, “where a plaintiff is seek-\ning relief from judgment that is most appropriately awarded\nby a trial court on a Rule 60 motion, such as where the plain-\ntiff is claiming oversight, mistake or clerical error, the plain-\ntiff may waive his right to present that type of argument on\nappeal if he did not make the appropriate Rule 60 motion\nbelow.” Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 958–59 (7th Cir.\n2000). Here, they contend, the district court seems simply to\nhave misread or overlooked the full extent of\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims, and such an oversight falls neatly\nwithin the coverage of Rule 60(b)(1). 40 Consequently, the de-\nfendants submit that, because Mr. Neely-Bey failed to raise\nthe district court’s oversight in a Rule 60(b) motion, he can-\nnot now pursue his claim for injunctive relief.\n We do not believe that Denius compels this result. First,\nthe language on which the defendants rely was not part of\nour holding. After discussing what might be the effect of De-\n\n40 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides: “(b) Grounds for\nRelief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just\nterms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a fi-\nnal judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mis-\ntake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[] ….”\n\f22 No. 17-2980\n\nnius’s failure to file a Rule 60(b) motion if the court had over-\nlooked his claim for injunctive relief, we explained that this,\nin fact, had not occurred: “This is not a case where the dis-\ntrict court completely overlooked plaintiff’s claims for equi-\ntable relief.” Id. at 959. Rather, we observed, the district court\nvery clearly had disposed of both “Denius’s claims for mon-\netary and equitable relief through its summary judgment\nopinion.” Id. Thus, we did not have to decide whether Deni-\nus’s actions constituted waiver (or abandonment) because\nthe nature of the district court’s error did not fall within the\nlanguage of Rule 60(b).\n Additionally, our discussion in Denius focused on the ef-\nfect of failing to bring a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b), how-\never, governs motions that seek to “‘relieve a party or its le-\ngal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceed-\ning’ for the enumerated reasons.” Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc.,\n788 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.\n60(b)). The operative order here, however, was the district\ncourt’s screening order, which was interlocutory. See DaSilva\nv. Rymarkiewicz, 888 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 2018). It was in\nthat order that the court narrowed the scope of the action to\ninclude only claims for damages. When the defendants later\nmoved for summary judgment, they reasonably focused\ntheir motion on the claims for damages—the only ones still\nbefore the court. Mr. Neely-Bey’s response, as well, was di-\nrected to the claims for damages. There was no obvious way\nfor Mr. Neely-Bey to revisit the dismissed claims in the brief-\ning on the summary-judgment motion. Moreover, it was the\ndistrict court’s summary-judgment ruling that immediately\npreceded its entry of final judgment, the triggering event for\na Rule 60(b) motion. Under these circumstances,\nMr. Neely-Bey was not required to seek relief under Rule\n\fNo. 17-2980 23\n\n60(b) for the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his claims\nfor injunctive relief. Consequently, Mr. Neely-Bey has not\nwaived, or otherwise abandoned, his claim for injunctive re-\nlief under the Free Exercise Clause. 41\n\n\n\n\n41 Mr. Neely-Bey’s situation is readily distinguishable from the other\ncases on which the defendants rely. See Heiar v. Crawford Cnty, 746 F.2d\n1190, 1196 (7th Cir. 1984); Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d\n335 (5th Cir. 2015). In Heiar, we held that the defendants had waived\ntheir statute-of-limitations defense because, although included in the\nanswer, they never again raised it—in a dispositive, pretrial motion, as\nan item in the pretrial order, or in a motion for judgment at trial. See 746\nF.2d at 1196. Here, however, the district court eliminated the claim for\ninjunctive relief sua sponte, and there was no clear opportunity for\nMr. Neely-Bey to raise the issue again with the district court before the\nentry of final judgment. In Peterson, the plaintiff’s complaint had includ-\ned a prayer for “[a]ny further legal and equitable relief to which Peterson\nmay be justly entitled.” 806 F.3d at 339 (alteration in original). However,\nPeterson did not request specific injunctive relief until after a jury verdict\nin his favor. The district court granted the injunction, but the Fifth Cir-\ncuit reversed and vacated the injunction. The Fifth Circuit explained that\nthe defendant had been prejudiced by Peterson’s inaction because, had it\nknown that injunctive relief was at issue, it would have called additional\nwitnesses and presented evidence specifically directed to that claim for\nrelief. However, it had been deprived of that opportunity by the plain-\ntiff’s failure to raise the issue earlier. Here, the defendants include boil-\nerplate language that allowing Mr. Neely-Bey to renew his claim for in-\njunctive relief “would prejudice the defendants by inhibiting their ability\nto defend against Neely-Bey’s claims and substantially increase the de-\nfendants’ potential liability.” Appellees’ Br. 32. However, the defendants\ndo not explain how or why this is the case. Unlike the defendant in Peter-\nson, they have not lost their ability to present evidence in opposition to\nthis claim, and they do not explain how revival of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim\nfor injunctive relief might substantially increase their potential liability.\n\f24 No. 17-2980\n\n b.\n Waiver and abandonment are the only bases that the de-\nfendants have offered for affirming the district court’s dis-\nmissal of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief. Alt-\nhough “[w]e may affirm a district court’s dismissal order on\nany basis supported by the record,” Craig v. Rich Twp. High\nSch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013), we cannot\nconclude, on this limited record, that judgment in favor of\nthe defendants is warranted.\n To establish a free exercise claim, Mr. Neely-Bey “had to\nsubmit evidence from which a jury could reasonably find\nthat the defendants personally and unjustifiably placed a\nsubstantial burden on his religious practices.” Thompson v.\nHolm, 809 F.3d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Hernandez v.\nC.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989)). The Supreme Court has ex-\nplained that a substantial burden is one that “put[s] substan-\ntial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to\nviolate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 718\n(1981). In the prison context, such a burden is justified if it is\n“reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.”\nThompson, 809 F.3d at 380 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,\n89–91 (1987)).\n Here, Mr. Neely-Bey asserts, and the defendants do not\ncontest, that participation in Friday services, including\nstanding to pray and discussing the words of the Prophet,\nare central practices of the MSTA faith. The ban enforced by\nthe CIF prevents Mr. Neely-Bey from fully participating in\nthe Friday services. The question therefore is whether the\nban is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.\n\fNo. 17-2980 25\n\n Mr. Neely-Bey maintains that “the sole reason offered by\nDefendants for these restrictions was enforcement of a\nmemorandum from an outside MSTA volunteer minister.” 42\nAccording to Mr. Neely-Bey, “[i]t was, purely and simply, a\nreaction to perceived religious heresy,” and the defendants’\nenforcement of religious orthodoxy “is not a legitimate peno-\nlogical interest.” 43\n As we already have discussed, however, this statement\ndoes not fairly characterize the situation. Brother Doles Bey’s\nmemo simply does not request that the prison enforce any\nreligious doctrine. It does not ask the CIF, for instance, to\nserve MSTA adherents only porkless meals (a requirement\nof the faith) and to enforce that abstinence through disci-\npline. Instead, the memo simply requested that the CIF al-\nlow the MSTA to choose those who may speak authoritative-\nly on matters of faith. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Neely-Bey’s\nassertion, there is evidence in the record to establish that the\nCIF’s actions were motivated by a desire to protect the rights\nof other MSTA adherents at the CIF. The memorandum from\nBrother Doles Bey clearly articulates a concern that, if\nMr. Neely-Bey, a professed sovereign citizen, were allowed\nto speak at MSTA services, the congregation of worshippers\nmight be disbanded. It also refers to the need for the MSTA\nto conduct the Friday prayer services in accordance with the\nrequirements of its tradition. 44\n\n\n42 Appellant’s Br. 28.\n43 Id. at 28–29.\n44\n See R.81 at 72 (“The Acting Chairman presides over the[] meetings and\nmakes sure that the meeting is opened and closed according to the laws\n (continued … )\n\f26 No. 17-2980\n\n Although the term “penological interests” is most typi-\ncally articulated in terms of a penal institution’s interest in\nsecurity and financial stability, it is well-established that the\nterm also encompasses far wider concerns of just governance\nin the penal setting. See, e.g., Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530–\n32 (2006) (plurality opinion) (holding that encouraging pro-\ngress toward rehabilitation serves legitimate penological ob-\njectives); Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 364 (3d Cir. 2006) (not-\ning that “the health and safety of inmates … are legitimate\npenological interests”); Goodwin v. Turner, 908 F.2d 1395,\n1399–1400 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that treating male and fe-\nmale inmates equally furthered a legitimate penological in-\nterest). We have no doubt that the term also involves the\nprotection of the constitutional rights of other prisoners. In-\ndeed, prison officials are under a constitutional duty to pro-\ntect those rights. We therefore have no doubt that the prison\nofficials are on solid ground in maintaining that they have a\nright, and indeed an obligation, to protect the right of other\nprisoners who adhere to the MSTA faith to worship in a\ncongregational manner to the extent that such a practice is\nconsistent with other penal objectives.\n Of course, in asserting such an objective and in choosing\na means to achieve such an objective, Turner v. Safley, 482\nU.S. 78, 89–90 (1987), teaches that prison officials cannot rely\non the mere incantation of a penal interest but must come\nforward with record evidence that substantiates that the in-\n\n\n( … continued)\nand Customs of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. and sets\nthe tone for services to flow smoothly and without [sic] from the\nbody/membership; and guests.”).\n\fNo. 17-2980 27\n\nterest is truly at risk and that prison officials have chosen an\nappropriate manner to assert that interest. Before us, the de-\nfendants justify their actions only in terms of the MSTA’s\nrights without any reference to the possible impact on the\nsecurity, operations, or finances of the CIF. Under such cir-\ncumstances, we cannot conclude that the defendants have\narticulated a legitimate “penological” reason for denying\nMr. Neely-Bey full participation in MSTA’s Friday services. 45\n The merits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief\ntherefore remain an open question. In considering this ques-\ntion, the district court should not only determine the propri-\nety of injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause, but\npossible relief under RLUIPA. We have observed that, when\na pro se prisoner asserts a claim under the Free Exercise\nClause, the district court should interpret that constitutional\nclaim to include a statutory claim under RLUIPA. Grayson,\n666 F.3d at 451.46 RLUIPA prohibits prison officials from\n\n45 In writing the Report of Conduct, Chaplain Smith interpreted\nMr. Neely-Bey’s actions as intending to interfere with and disrupt MSTA\nservices on Holy Days. See R.81 at 73. Avoiding disruption of, and inter-\nference with, the meetings of authorized groups at the CIF is a legitimate\npenological interest. However, as already discussed, the defendants have\nnot argued that this was a consideration in the action they took against\nMr. Neely-Bey.\n46 Although damages are not available under RLUIPA, injunctive relief\nis. See Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, because\nsovereign immunity and qualified immunity protect government offi-\ncials only from damages suits, those doctrines cannot protect officials\nfrom claims for injunctive relief brought under RLUIPA. See Sorrentino v.\nGodinez, 777 F.3d 410, 415 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Sovereign immunity normally\ndoes not bar suits for injunctive relief in federal court alleging that a state\nofficial violated the federal constitution or laws.”); Hannemann v. S. Door\n (continued … )\n\f28 No. 17-2980\n\n“impos[ing] a substantial burden on the religious exercise”\nof an inmate “unless the government demonstrates that im-\nposition of the burden on that person … is the least restric-\ntive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental inter-\nest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Because RLUIPA “confers\ngreater religious rights on prisoners than the free exercise\nclause has been interpreted to do,” Grayson, 666 F.3d at 451,\nit is possible that Mr. Neely-Bey is entitled to statutory in-\njunctive relief even if he cannot establish a right to relief un-\nder the Free Exercise Clause.\n A word of caution. On remand, the district court first\nshould consider whether subsequent events have rendered\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. Prior to\noral argument, the defendants notified us that\nMr. Neely-Bey had been transferred from the CIF to the\nWestville Correctional Facility. At oral argument, counsel for\nthe defendants suggested that the transfer rendered\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. However,\nthere is no evidence in the record regarding how\nMr. Neely-Bey’s transfer will affect his ability to participate\nin MSTA worship. Moreover, we do not know the likelihood\nof Mr. Neely-Bey being transferred back to the CIF. See\nYoung v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 373–74 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting\nthat the likelihood of being transferred back to an institution\nis a factual determination for the district court). We leave it,\ntherefore, to the district court to determine on a more devel-\n\n\n( … continued)\nCnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he defense of quali-\nfied immunity does not protect defendants from an action for injunctive\nrelief.”).\n\fNo. 17-2980 29\n\noped record the effect of Mr. Neely-Bey’s transfer on his\nclaims for injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause\nand RLUIPA.\n In sum, we agree with the district court that the defend-\nants are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Neely-Bey’s\nclaims for damages under the Free Exercise Clause. Howev-\ner, the district court failed to consider Mr. Neely-Bey’s\nclaims for injunctive relief under either the Free Exercise\nClause or under RLUIPA. We therefore remand to the dis-\ntrict court for further consideration of these claims in the\nfirst instance, including the effect of any subsequent events\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\nB. Establishment Clause\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the district court erred\nin failing to address his Establishment Clause claim. He fur-\nther asserts that, had the district court considered the claim,\nit would have concluded that the defendants violated the\nEstablishment Clause in enforcing Brother Doles Bey’s pro-\nhibition against his full participation in MSTA meetings.\n Mr. Neely-Bey is correct that the district court’s order\ngranting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment did\nnot explicitly mention the Establishment Clause. However, it\ndid speak more broadly of whether the defendants’ actions\nhad violated Mr. Neely-Bey’s “rights under the First\nAmendment.” 47 It concluded that there was no controlling\nauthority “directly establishing that the defendants’ conduct\nin this case, where state officials enforced a ban from partici-\n\n\n47 R.84 at 8.\n\f30 No. 17-2980\n\npating in religious activities that was put in place by the re-\nligious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights under\nthe First Amendment.” 48 It therefore granted qualified im-\nmunity to the defendants. We turn, therefore, to the question\nwhether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim under the Establishment Clause.\n 1.\n Mr. Neely-Bey submits that, at the time Chaplain Smith\nlimited his participation in MSTA meetings, it was clear that\nsuch action violated the Establishment Clause. He begins by\nnoting that then, as now, “[a] government policy or practice\nviolates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular pur-\npose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or\n(3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.” Kauf-\nman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing\nLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971)). According to\nMr. Neely-Bey, the defendants’ actions violated all three\nprongs.\n First, he claims that there is no secular purpose for ban-\nning him from participating in MSTA Holy Day services. In-\nstead, he contends, the defendants’ “only reason for impos-\ning this restriction is a desire to enforce the religious di-\nrective of an outside volunteer minister, a directive that is\nbased entirely on religious orthodoxy.”49 We cannot accept\nthis submission. In determining whether a government ac-\ntion has a secular purpose, “a government’s characterization\nof its purpose is entitled to deference, although courts must\n\n48 Id. at 7–8.\n49 Appellant’s Br. 41.\n\fNo. 17-2980 31\n\nensure that the government’s characterization is sincere.”\nVision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 992 (7th Cir.\n2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Fairly read, the de-\nfendants have stated that their reason for giving effect to\nBrother Doles Bey’s memo was to protect the associational\nrights of the MSTA to choose, in the context of a religious\nworship ceremony, participants and leaders of the ob-\nservance. Chaplain Smith’s directive to Mr. Neely-Bey\nmakes this objective crystal clear. The directive explicitly\nrecognizes Mr. Neely-Bey “as a guest of MST of A,” who\ncould “listen,” but not instruct at MSTA meetings. 50 In pro-\ntecting the rights of the other prisoners, as was their obliga-\ntion, the defendants may have reinforced incidentally the\ntenets of that faith. There is no evidence in the record, how-\never, their actions were designed to produce such an effect. 51\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the primary effect of\nthe action is to advance the orthodoxy of the MSTA. He be-\nlieves that his situation mirrors the “pernicious fusion” of\nchurch and state that the Court condemned in Larkin v.\nGrendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), and Board of Education\n\n\n\n50 R.81 at 78.\n51 Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that he is being singled out because of\nhis religious beliefs. “The restriction imposed by Defendants,”\nMr. Neely-Bey explains, “which prohibits [him] from speaking or stand-\ning during Friday Holy Day services while others do so[,] is not based on\nany neutral or generally applicable rules about conduct or even member-\nship in religious groups or participation in religious services.” Appel-\nlant’s Br. 42. It is, however, based on a neutral rule—that religious asso-\nciations should be able to control their own leadership and membership.\n\f32 No. 17-2980\n\nof Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687\n(1994). 52\n In Larkin, a Massachusetts state law provided that estab-\nlishments “located within a radius of five hundred feet of a\nchurch or school shall not be licensed for the sale of alcoholic\nbeverages if the governing body of such church or school\nfile[d] [a] written objection” to the license. 459 U.S. at 117 (in-\nternal quotation marks omitted). The Court determined that\nthe statute resulted in an unconstitutional cessation of gov-\nernmental authority to a religious institution:\n Section 16C gives churches the right to deter-\n mine whether a particular applicant will be\n granted a liquor license, or even which one of\n several competing applicants will receive a li-\n cense.\n The churches’ power under the statute is\n standardless, calling for no reasons, findings,\n or reasoned conclusions. That power may\n therefore be used by churches to promote goals\n beyond insulating the church from undesirable\n neighbors; it could be employed for explicitly\n religious goals, for example, favoring liquor li-\n censes for members of that congregation or\n adherents of that faith.\nId. at 125. It therefore did “not strain” the Court’s “prior\nholdings to say that the statute can be seen as having a ‘pri-\nmary’ and ‘principal’ effect of advancing religion.” Id. at 126.\n\n\n52 Id. at 44.\n\fNo. 17-2980 33\n\n Similarly, in Kiryas Joel Village School District, a special\nstate law had created a school district, the lines of which\nwere the same as the lines of property owned by a Hasidic\nJewish congregation. The result was that the provision of\npublic educational services within a district had been\nawarded based on religious views and was completely con-\ntrolled by a religious body. The Court observed that the Free\nExercise and Establishment Clauses “‘compel[] the State to\npursue a course of “neutrality” toward religion,’ favoring\nneither one religion over others nor religious adherents col-\nlectively over nonadherents.” Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill.\nSch. Dist., 512 U.S. at 696 (quoting Comm. for Pub. Ed. & Reli-\ngious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 792–93 (1973)). The\nstatute at issue, the Court explained, “depart[ed] from this\nconstitutional command by delegating the State’s discretion-\nary authority over public schools to a group defined by its\ncharacter as a religious community, in a legal and historical\ncontext that gives no assurance that governmental power\nhas been or will be exercised neutrally.” Id.\n In both Larken and Kiryas Joel Village School District, there-\nfore, a formal enactment ceded a discretionary function of\ngovernance to a religious body. The CIF, however, has not\nceded disciplinary authority to the MSTA. The CIF has not\ngiven the MSTA the power to discipline an MSTA member\nif, for instance, the member fails to attend Friday services.\nInstead, the MSTA asked the CIF defendants to protect its\nright to control the religious content of the MSTA’s own\nmeetings by determining who may or may not teach its con-\ngregants. Here, a religious entity has not been given carte\nblanche to administer a government program or bestow a\ngovernment benefit as it sees fit.\n\f34 No. 17-2980\n\n Finally, Mr. Neely-Bey submits that the CIF’s enforce-\nment of Brother Doles Bey’s memo violates the entangle-\nment prong of the Lemon test. To establish excessive entan-\nglement with religion, Mr. Neely-Bey has to “demonstrate\n‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of\nthe sovereign in religious activity.’” Vision Church, 468 F.3d\nat 995 (quoting Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equaliza-\ntion of California, 493 U.S. 378, 393 (1990)). “The general rule\nis that, to constitute excessive entanglement, the government\naction must involve ‘intrusive government participation in,\nsupervision of, or inquiry into religious affairs.’” Id. (quoting\nUnited States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 631\n(7th Cir. 2000)).\n Mr. Neely-Bey does not address these standards or sug-\ngest how the evidence in the record establishes the level of\nintrusiveness required for entanglement. Instead, he submits\nthat Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009), necessitates\nsuch a finding of entanglement.\n In Nelson, an Illinois inmate had requested a meatless di-\net on Fridays as an act of penance in accordance with his\nCatholic faith. The correctional facility’s chaplain, Miller, re-\nviewed the request, “cross-checking the inmate’s declared\nreligious affiliation to determine if a religious diet was re-\nquired”; specifically, he “looked for confirmation of the reli-\ngious dietary tenet ‘on paper’—that is, he looked for confir-\nmation of the requirement in some ‘church document’—as\nopposed to inquiring regarding the spiritual goals of the in-\nmate.” Id. at 872. The prison chaplain denied the request,\nand, in his denial, he “cited several Bible passages purport-\nedly contradicting Nelson’s beliefs regarding penance.” Id. at\n\fNo. 17-2980 35\n\n881. Eventually, at the direction of the warden, Nelson re-\nceived a vegan diet.\n Nelson filed an action against Miller and several other\nadministrators at the correctional facility, alleging, among\nother claims, a violation of the Establishment Clause. Specif-\nically, Nelson alleged that Miller had “favored Muslim and\nAfrican Hebrew Israelite prisoners by approving vegan diets\nfor those prisoners without obtaining written verification\nthat such diets were required by their religions.” Id. at 880–\n81. The district court, however, “found that Nelson had not\nproven a violation of the establishment clause because there\nwere valid neutral reasons for Miller’s actions in this re-\ngard.” Id. at 881. On appeal, we agreed with the district\ncourt. We explained that the correctional facility’s regula-\ntions\n provided that prisoners could abstain from\n “any foods the consumption of which violates\n their required religious tenets” and the district\n court concluded that Miller had required doc-\n umentation because he was unfamiliar with\n any Catholic “required religious tenet” which\n necessitated a non-meat diet. Under the district\n court’s reasoning, Miller did not ask Muslim\n and African Hebrew Israelite prisoners to\n submit verification because he understood\n from his experience that a limited diet was part\n of many of these prisoners’ religious practice.\nId.\n Nevertheless, we observed, Miller’s denial, which “cited\nseveral Bible passages purportedly contradicting Nelson’s\n\f36 No. 17-2980\n\nbeliefs regarding penance, improperly entangled [Miller] in\nmatters of religious interpretation. It simply [wa]s not ap-\npropriate for a prison official to argue with a prisoner re-\ngarding the objective truth of a prisoner’s religious belief.”\nId.\n We fail to see Nelson’s application to the circumstances\nhere. Chaplain Smith did not undertake his own review of\nMSTA doctrine. Rather, he was told by the MSTA minister at\nthe CIF, Brother Doles Bey, 53 that Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession\nof sovereign citizenship 54 precluded him from full member-\nship and participation in the MSTA. This tension between\nthe tenets of the MSTA and the sovereign-citizen movement\nis well documented in our case law. See Bey v. State, 847 F.3d\n559, 560–61 (7th Cir. 2017). Chaplain Smith accepted the\nstatement of the MSTA representative; he made no commen-\ntary at all concerning the “objective truth” of\nMr. Neely-Bey’s beliefs. He simply forbade him from dis-\nrupting the MSTA service.\n In sum, at the very least, Chaplain Smith did not act in a\nmanner inconsistent with existing precedent. See al-Kidd, 563\nU.S. at 741. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s\njudgment granting qualified immunity to the defendants on\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the Establish-\nment Clause.\n\n\n\n53 Again, there is no question that Brother Doles Bey is the designated\nrepresentative of the MSTA at the CIF. See supra note 9.\n54As noted previously, see supra note 8, Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession of\nsovereign-citizen beliefs is not at issue here.\n\fNo. 17-2980 37\n\n 2.\n As we already have noted, qualified immunity protects\nthe defendants only against claims for damages; it does not\nprotect the defendants against claims for injunctive relief. See\nHannemann, 673 F.3d at 758. The district court failed to rec-\nognize Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief and,\ntherefore, never addressed the merits of those claims. On\nappeal, the defendants, as well, have failed to address the\nmerits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under\nthe Establishment Clause. They simply maintain that\nMr. Neely-Bey has waived or abandoned any claims for in-\njunctive relief—a contention we already have rejected.\n If the record contained any evidence that might support\nthe granting of injunctive relief, we would vacate the district\ncourt’s judgment in this respect and remand for further pro-\nceedings. However, as our earlier discussion of\nMr. Neely-Bey’s Establishment Clause argument demon-\nstrates, the record is entirely devoid of any evidence that\nmight form the basis for such a claim. Consequently, the dis-\ntrict court need not revisit the matter of injunctive relief on\nremand.\n Conclusion\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s\njudgment regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages\nunder the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. We also\ndirect the district court to enter judgment for the defendants\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Es-\ntablishment Clause. However, we remand the case to the\ndistrict court for it to consider, in the first instance,\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Free\n\f38 No. 17-2980\n\nExercise Clause and under RLUIPA. In undertaking this\ntask, the district court first should ensure that the controver-\nsy has not become moot.\n The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.\n AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Derrick D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel L. CONLEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-2980\\nDERRICK D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nDANIEL L. CONLEY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:15-cv-01522-WTL-DML — William T. Lawrence, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Derrick D. Neely-Bey Tarik-El filed\\nthis action against various officials at the Correctional Indus-\\ntrial Facility (“CIF”) in Pendleton, Indiana, and at the Indi-\\nana Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). He alleged that\\nthe defendants had prevented him from participating fully\\nin the worship services of the Moorish Science Temple of\\nAmerica (“MSTA”) held at the CIF, in violation of the Free\\nExercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.\\n\\f2 No. 17-2980\\n\\nThe district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1915A. It dismissed claims against Commissioner Bruce\\nLemmon and Superintendent Wendy Knight on Eleventh\\nAmendment grounds and against Officer David Liebel on\\nthe ground that he had not participated personally in any of\\nthe actions against Mr. Neely-Bey. The district court allowed\\nthe damages claims against the remaining defendants to go\\nforward. Following discovery, the remaining defendants\\nmoved for summary judgment on qualified immunity\\ngrounds. The district court granted the motion.\\n Before us, Mr. Neely-Bey contends that the district court\\nfailed to recognize that his complaint sought both damages\\nand injunctive relief. He maintains that his injunctive relief\\nclaims must be reinstated because they are unaffected by\\nsovereign or qualified immunity. Moreover, he contends\\nthat the district court erred in granting qualified immunity\\nto the defendants on his damages claims.\\n We conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified\\nimmunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the\\nFree Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause and,\\ntherefore, affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to\\nthose claims. We agree with Mr. Neely-Bey that the district\\ncourt misread his complaint and that it clearly seeks injunc-\\ntive relief as well as damages against the defendants. More-\\nover, the district court should have read Mr. Neely-Bey’s pro\\nse free exercise claim as seeking injunctive relief under the\\nReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42\\nU.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”). Consequently, we must\\nremand so that the district court may consider whether in-\\njunctive relief should be granted on the free exercise claim.\\nIn addressing this matter, the district court first must deter-\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 3\\n\\nmine whether the free exercise claim and RLUIPA claims are\\nmoot. If it determines that the claims are not moot, it should\\nconsider whether injunctive relief is warranted. As a matter\\nof law, there is no basis for injunctive relief on the estab-\\nlishment clause claims, and we therefore direct the district\\ncourt to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on those\\nclaims.\\n I\\n BACKGROUND\\n A.\\n Until recently, Mr. Neely-Bey was incarcerated at CIF,\\nwhere he was an active member of the MSTA congregation.\\nThe MSTA is a national religious organization founded by\\nProphet Noble Drew Ali. 1 Its most important group worship\\nmeeting is held on Fridays and includes recitation of the\\nMoorish American Prayer, during which each adherent\\n“stands, [and] faces the East.” 2 After the prayer, a group\\nleader reads the Divine Constitution, Bylaws, and verses\\nfrom the Koran. Following the readings, the leader invites\\nother participants to comment upon the readings. Finally,\\nservices conclude with the “Warning from the Holy Proph-\\net” followed by another recitation of the Moorish American\\nPrayer.3 The MSTA also holds “Sunday School.” 4 During\\n\\n\\n1 R.81 at 97.\\n2 Id. at 98.\\n3 Id.\\n4It appears that, at some point, the MSTA group at CIF began meeting\\non Mondays instead of Sundays. See id. at 78 (Memo from Chaplain\\n (continued … )\\n\\f4 No. 17-2980\\n\\n2013 and 2014, Mr. Neely-Bey attended Friday Holy Day\\nservices and Sunday school. The records of the MSTA reflect\\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey regularly spoke at these meetings. 5\\n In January 2013, Mr. Neely-Bey submitted an affidavit to\\nIDOC Commissioner Lemmon. The cover letter stated that\\nMr. Neely-Bey was providing the affidavit to Commission-\\ner Lemmon “so that we may come to an understanding\\n[that] this affidavit is [b]inding on you and you[r] office.” 6 It\\nasserted that Mr. Neely-Bey was a “Sovereign Moorish Na-\\ntional”; that he was not subject to the enactments of the\\nUnited States Congress because he considered it to be a for-\\neign power; and that he “squarely challenge[d] the fraudu-\\nlent, usurping entanglement of JURISDICTION” over him. 7\\nThe affidavit requested a hearing to establish the IDOC’s au-\\nthority over Mr. Neely-Bey. As a result of the affidavit, the\\nIDOC classified Mr. Neely-Bey as a “Sovereign Citizen,”\\nwhich was designated as a “Security Threat Group.” 8\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nSmith setting forth how Mr. Neely-Bey may participate in “Monday\\nmeetings”).\\n5 See R.40; R.41; R.42.\\n6 R.70-3 at 2.\\n7 See id. at 3–4 (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n8 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey claims that “the record does not support\\nthat he subscribed to such ‘sovereign citizen’ beliefs or that he intended\\nto associate himself with such beliefs by identifying himself as a ‘Sover-\\neign Moorish National.’” Appellant’s Br. 9. However, there is no evi-\\ndence in the record that Mr. Neely-Bey contested or grieved this designa-\\ntion. Mr. Neely-Bey also does not maintain that sovereign citizens should\\nnot be considered a Security Threat Group. Thus, neither\\n (continued … )\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 5\\n\\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s affidavit made its way to Brother M.\\nDoles Bey, 9 the MSTA minister who led the services at the\\nCIF.10 On April 6, 2014, Brother Doles Bey sent a memoran-\\ndum on MSTA letterhead to, among others, David Liebel,\\nDirector of Religious and Volunteer Services Chaplains at\\nthe CIF; Brother V. Jones-Bey, Minister of Institutional Mis-\\nsion Affairs for the MSTA; and Mr. Neely-Bey. In his memo-\\nrandum, Brother Doles Bey explained that sovereign citizens\\ncould not be participating members of the MSTA. The memo\\nrelated that, at another institution, the MSTA had allowed an\\ninmate with a “Security Group Threat” designation to facili-\\ntate a service, and as a result, the institution’s MSTA group\\n“was shut down.” 11 Brother Doles Bey stated that\\n\\n( … continued)\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s classification as a sovereign citizen, his designation as a\\nmember of a Security Threat Group, nor the restrictions placed on Secu-\\nrity Threat Groups are at issue in this appeal.\\n9 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey repeatedly addresses Brother Doles Bey as a\\n“volunteer minister,” suggesting that all of his ministry work is volun-\\ntary and that he is not an official representative of the MSTA. The record\\ndoes not bear this out. In his complaint, Mr. Neely-Bey identifies Brother\\nDoles Bey as “the Minister & I.D.O.C. volunteer of the Moorish Science\\nTemple of America.” R.1 at 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, according to\\nIDOC policies, a volunteer like Brother Doles Bey must be “recognized\\nby a religious body.” R.81 at 37.\\n10 Mr. Neely-Bey alleges in his complaint that IDOC Commissioner\\nLemmon forwarded the affidavit to the Director of Religious Services,\\nDavid Liebel. R.1 at 3. Mr. Liebel presumably then passed it on to Broth-\\ner Doles Bey, although there is not an allegation in the complaint to that\\neffect. Neither party identifies any evidence in the record that establishes\\nhow the affidavit reached Brother Doles Bey.\\n11 R.81 at 71.\\n\\f6 No. 17-2980\\n\\nMr. Neely-Bey could attend services as a “guest,” but that he\\ncould not teach or serve as a facilitator. 12\\n On March 23, 2015, the Chaplain at the CIF, David Smith,\\nsent a memo to Mr. Neely-Bey in which he stated that he\\nhad “received [Mr. Neely-Bey’s] request to be added to the\\nMST of A Religious Services group” and that he needed\\nMr. Neely-Bey “to understand that by returning to this\\ngroup you agree to fully cooperate with and follow the April\\n6, 2014 sanctions placed on you by MST of A, Inc.” 13 Specifi-\\ncally, Mr. Neely-Bey was forbidden from standing, speaking\\nat, or facilitating any of the Friday services. He was allowed\\nto speak when called upon during their Monday meetings;\\nhowever, he could “not debate, instruct, dominate or speak\\nagainst the teaching of the Prophet, the MST of A, Inc., or the\\nU.S. Constitution.” 14\\n In late summer 2015, Chaplain Smith filed a “Report of\\nConduct” regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s actions during an\\nMSTA meeting. Chaplain Smith stated that he had witnessed\\nMr. Neely-Bey “speak and openly participate during the\\nFriday MSTA Holy Day meeting” and that these actions\\nwere in violation of the direct order that he had given to\\nMr. Neely-Bey, orally and in writing. 15 Chaplain Smith con-\\ncluded that Mr. Neely-Bey’s “actions … demonstrated his\\n\\n12 Id. at 72.\\n13Id. at 78. The parties do not explain why Mr. Neely-Bey, who had been\\nan active member of the MSTA in 2013 and 2014, had to request to be\\nadded to the group in 2015.\\n14 Id.\\n15 Id. at 73.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 7\\n\\nintention to interfere and disrupt MSTA services on Holy\\nDays.” 16\\n Officer Daniel Conley “screened” the conduct report,17\\nand a hearing was held at Mr. Neely-Bey’s request. At the\\nhearing, chaired by Officer Richard Sidwell, it was deter-\\nmined that Mr. Neely-Bey had ignored an order by Chaplain\\nSmith. Mr. Neely-Bey was given twenty hours of extra work\\nto be completed in the next month. Although the determina-\\ntion makes no mention of it, Mr. Neely-Bey testified at his\\ndeposition, and the defendants conceded for purposes of\\nsummary judgment, that Mr. Neely-Bey “was suspended\\nfrom [MSTA] meetings for one year.”18\\n Mr. Neely-Bey appealed to CIF Superintendent, Wendy\\nKnight. He argued that the sanction merely enforced the\\nMSTA’s ban on his participation in its services. Consequent-\\nly, because “the State cannot get [in]volved in M.S.T. of A.\\naffairs,” 19 the order could not be enforced. Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nappeal was denied. In her explanation, Superintendent\\nKnight stated:\\n\\n\\n\\n16 Id.\\n17 Again, the parties do not direct us to any place in the record contain-\\ning a description of the screening function. In admissions produced in\\nresponse to Mr. Neely-Bey’s requests, Officer Conley stated that he “had\\nreservation[s] about the conduct report.” Id. at 22. Neither in the admis-\\nsion, nor in any other place in the record, does Officer Conley explain the\\nnature of his reservations.\\n18 R.71 at 1.\\n19 R.81 at 76.\\n\\f8 No. 17-2980\\n\\n You were charged with code 347 “Refusing to\\n obey an order from staff” and you were found\\n guilty by the DHB chairman.\\n I find the Report of Conduct to be descriptive\\n and credible, and the statement provided by\\n staff within the body of the report did support\\n the finding. When any staff member gives you\\n an order, you need to follow it. After you have\\n followed the staff member’s order, if you do\\n not agree with that order or any order from\\n staff, then you have a right to follow the de-\\n partment’s grievance procedures. I find no er-\\n rors in your case and the Report of Conduct is\\n clear. You have provided me with no state-\\n ments or evidence to cause me to change the\\n decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer,\\n therefore: your appeal is denied.[ 20]\\n B.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed this action in the district court\\nagainst Commissioner Lemmon, Superintendent Knight, Di-\\nrector of Religious Services David Liebel, Chaplain Smith,\\nOfficer Conley, and Officer Sidwell. He alleged that he had\\nbeen subjected to religious persecution when his affidavit\\nwas forwarded to the MSTA, that the CIF had become en-\\ntangled in a religious dispute by enforcing the memorandum\\nof Brother Doles Bey, and that the CIF defendants had vio-\\nlated his First Amendment right to free exercise when Broth-\\ner Doles Bey’s memo was enforced. As a remedy,\\n\\n20 Id. at 77.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 9\\n\\nMr. Neely-Bey requested “that [he] receive $750,000 dollars”\\nand that the defendants “cease all action against [him].” 21\\n The district court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint\\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 22 The court determined that any\\nclaims for damages against Commissioner Lemmon and Su-\\nperintendent Knight in their official capacities were barred\\nby the Eleventh Amendment and therefore dismissed those\\nclaims. It also dismissed the claims against Mr. Liebel be-\\ncause he was not involved personally in the alleged depriva-\\ntion. The court therefore instructed the clerk “to remove\\nBruce Lemmon, Wendy Knight, and David Liebel from the\\ndocket.” 23 The court allowed the damages claims against\\nChaplain Smith, Officer Conley, and Officer Sidwell to pro-\\nceed. The court’s screening order was silent with respect to\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider. 24 He argued\\nthat the Eleventh Amendment did not bar his claims against\\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight because\\nthe claims were brought against the defendants in both their\\n\\n\\n21 R.1 at 6.\\n22 The district court initially dismissed Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, be-\\nlieving that it was duplicative of another action that Mr. Neely-Bey had\\nfiled. See R.8. Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider, pointing out\\nthat the disciplinary action on which the present action is based is differ-\\nent from the ones at issue in the earlier action. See R.10. The court grant-\\ned the motion to reconsider and conducted a merits screening under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1915A. See R.13.\\n23 R.13 at 3.\\n24 See R.17.\\n\\f10 No. 17-2980\\n\\nofficial capacities and their personal capacities.25\\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue, however, that the district court\\nshould reinstate his claims for injunctive relief because sov-\\nereign immunity did not operate as a bar to injunctive relief.\\nThe district court denied reconsideration “[f]or the reasons\\nset forth in the screening entry.”26\\n After discovery, the remaining defendants moved for\\nsummary judgment. Relying on Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,\\n530 U.S. 640 (2000), the defendants submitted that it was\\nclearly established that the MSTA had a First Amendment\\nright to choose its membership, and the sanction against\\nMr. Neely-Bey simply implemented that right. According to\\nthe defendants, “failure to enforce the MST of A memoran-\\ndum would be the equivalent of forcing the MST of A to as-\\nsociate with Neely-Bey as a member in violation of MST of\\nA’s First Amendment rights.” 27 Moreover, once the MSTA\\ndetermined that Mr. Neely-Bey could not participate in its\\nservices, IDOC was “prohibited from reviewing or question-\\ning [its] religious decisions.” 28\\n The defendants also asserted that, if they had violated\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s rights, they were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity. They noted that a “diligent search of Seventh Circuit\\nand United States Supreme Court cases ha[d] yielded no\\n\\n25He also argued that his claim against Mr. Liebel should be reinstated.\\nSee id. at 2.\\n26 R.19.\\n27 R.71 at 8.\\n28Id. at 7 (citing Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v.\\nEEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 186 (2012)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 11\\n\\ncases with closely analogous facts that would establish that\\nPlaintiffs’ [sic] rights have been violated in this case.” 29\\nTherefore, Mr. Neely-Bey had not met his burden of defeat-\\ning the qualified immunity defense.\\n In response, Mr. Neely-Bey maintained that IDOC’s en-\\nforcement of the limitations set forth in MSTA’s memoran-\\ndum violated the Establishment Clause and violated IDOC’s\\nown policies. 30 Regarding the defendants’ claim that they\\nwere enforcing MSTA’s associational rights, Mr. Neely-Bey\\nbelieved that Dale was distinguishable because he was not\\nasking to be appointed a leader of the MSTA, but only to\\nparticipate fully in the services.\\n Turning to the issue of qualified immunity,\\nMr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that\\nIDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex-\\ncept when required by penological interests. Mr. Neely-Bey\\nexplained that participating in the Friday services was a key\\nelement of the MSTA faith, that Chaplain Smith understood\\nthis, and that disciplining him for participating in the Friday\\nservices constituted an unreasonable burden on his free ex-\\nercise rights. He also claimed that the defendants had no le-\\ngitimate penological interests in preventing his participation\\nin Friday services. Turning specifically to Officers Conley\\nand Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey noted that Officer Conley admit-\\n\\n\\n29 Id. at 11.\\n30 Mr. Neely-Bey specifically identified the policy providing that “[t]he\\nDepartment does not endorse or recognize any particular denomination,\\nsect, or faction as the ‘correct’ manner to practice a particular religion.”\\nSee R.81 at 6.\\n\\f12 No. 17-2980\\n\\nted that he had reservations about Chaplain Smith’s conduct\\nreport, but nevertheless screened the conduct report. As for\\nOfficer Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that, at the time of\\nthe disciplinary hearing, Officer Sidwell was aware that the\\ndispute was of a religious as opposed to disciplinary nature.\\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue that, even if the doctrine of\\nqualified immunity protected the defendants from liability\\nfor damages, his claims for injunctive relief nevertheless\\ncould proceed.\\n The district court granted summary judgment to the re-\\nmaining defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. The\\ncourt explained that, although “[t]he general principles of\\nFirst Amendment law prohibiting officials from placing a\\nsubstantial burden on the free exercise of religion by inmates\\nare clearly established, … the qualified immunity defense\\nturns on whether the application of those principles to the\\ncircumstances faced by the defendants was clear at the\\ntime.” 31 “Here,” the court explained, Mr. Neely-Bey could\\nnot “prevail in his effort to overcome qualified immunity by\\nrelying on general principles of First Amendment right[s]”\\nbecause “[t]he Supreme Court has directed that ‘“clearly es-\\ntablished” law is not to be defined at a high level of generali-\\nty.’” 32 The court therefore entered judgment for the defend-\\nants.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n31 R.84 at 7.\\n32 Id. (quoting White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 13\\n\\n II\\n DISCUSSION\\nA. Free Exercise\\n 1. Claim for Damages\\n Mr. Neely-Bey first submits that the district court erred\\nin concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified\\nimmunity for damages related to his free exercise claim. The\\nprinciples governing this question are well-settled. Qualified\\nimmunity shields government officials from civil “liability\\n‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established\\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per-\\nson would have known.’” Purvis v. Oest, 614 F.3d 713, 720\\n(7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818\\n(1982)). A qualified immunity determination comprises two\\ninquiries; we must determine (1) “whether the plaintiff’s al-\\nlegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right,”\\nand (2) “whether the right was clearly established at the time\\nof defendant’s alleged misconduct.” McAllister v. Price, 615\\nF.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010). We are permitted to skip the\\nfirst inquiry and proceed directly to the question whether a\\nparticular right was clearly established. See, e.g., Whitlock v.\\nBrown, 596 F.3d 406, 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pearson v. Cal-\\nlahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). This is the approach that the dis-\\ntrict court took, and the defendants urge that we affirm the\\ndistrict court’s judgment on this basis.\\n As we frequently have explained, a clearly established\\nright is one that “is sufficiently clear that any reasonable of-\\nficial would understand that his or her actions violate that\\nright, meaning that existing precedent must have placed the\\nstatutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Zim-\\n\\f14 No. 17-2980\\n\\nmerman v. Doran, 807 F.3d 178, 182 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing\\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015)). “[A] case directly\\non point,” however, is not required. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). “The dispositive question is ‘whether\\nthe violative nature of particular conduct is clearly estab-\\nlished … .’” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (quoting al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. at 742). “This inquiry ‘“must be undertaken in light of the\\nspecific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”’”\\nId. (emphasis added) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.\\n194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)).\\n Here, the district court observed that there was no gov-\\nerning law “directly establishing that the defendants’ con-\\nduct in this case, where state officials enforced a ban from\\nparticipating in religious activities that was put in place by\\nthe religious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights\\nunder the First Amendment.” 33 Mr. Neely-Bey believes,\\nhowever, that the law “provided ‘fair warning’ to the de-\\nfendants ‘that their alleged [conduct] was unconstitution-\\nal.’” 34 According to Mr. Neely-Bey, the law was clearly es-\\ntablished that a prison official cannot deny a prisoner’s free\\nexercise rights based on the official’s understanding of the\\ntenets of a particular faith. He relies principally on Grayson\\nv. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012), and Vinning-El v. Ev-\\nans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011), for this proposition.\\n In Grayson, an inmate-adherent of the African Hebrew Is-\\nraelites of Jerusalem was forced to cut off his dreadlocks “on\\n\\n\\n33 R.84 at 7–8.\\n34 Appellant’s Br. 35–36 (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866\\n(2014) (per curiam)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 15\\n\\nthe ground that they posed a security risk.” 666 F.3d at 451.\\nGrayson claimed that not cutting his hair was an element of\\nhis faith; specifically, he informed prison officials that he had\\ntaken “the Nazarite vow of separation,” which required him\\nto refrain from cutting his hair. Id. at 454. The prison chap-\\nlain denied Grayson’s request to grow out his hair because\\nwearing dreadlocks was not a required element of the Afri-\\ncan Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. The chaplain acknowl-\\nedged that Rastafarians were allowed to have dreadlocks,\\nbut distinguished their situation because having dreadlocks\\nwas a requirement of their faith. On appeal, we observed\\nthat Grayson’s act of not cutting his hair could have been a\\nlegitimate aspect of his personal faith. We explained that\\n“[p]rison authorities are always entitled to balance security\\nconcerns against religious practices, and the need to do so\\nmay be greater with regard to optional than to mandatory\\npractices.” Id. at 455. Nevertheless,\\n [p]rison chaplains may not determine which\\n religious observances are permissible because\\n orthodox. … No more can the prison permit\\n Rastafarians to wear long hair and without jus-\\n tification forbid a sincere African Hebrew Isra-\\n elite of Jerusalem to do so, even if he is more\\n zealous in his religious observances than his\\n religion requires him to be.\\nId.\\n We reached a similar result in Vinning-El. Vinning-El in-\\nvolved an MSTA inmate who asked for a vegan diet as a re-\\nligious accommodation. The chaplain denied the request,\\n“observing that the tenets of [the MSTA] require a non-pork\\ndiet,” not a vegan one. 657 F.3d at 592. Vinning-El sued, and\\n\\f16 No. 17-2980\\n\\nthe district court denied the chaplain qualified immunity.\\nOn appeal, we observed that the district court had not made\\nany findings concerning the chaplain’s motivations in deny-\\ning Vinning-El’s request. The chaplain could have denied\\nthe request because he did not believe that a vegan diet was\\na tenet of the MSTA faith, or he could have denied it because\\nhe did not believe that the request was being made on reli-\\ngious grounds. If the former, the chaplain was not entitled to\\nqualified immunity because it was clearly established at the\\ntime of the denial that “[a] personal religious faith is entitled\\nto as much protection as one espoused by an organized\\ngroup.” Id. at 593. However, if the latter, then the chaplain\\nhad not violated the inmate’s rights because mere dietary\\npreferences, unrelated to religious observances, need not be\\naccommodated. Absent a determination as to the chaplain’s\\nreasoning, we could not resolve the qualified immunity\\nquestion and therefore remanded the case to the district\\ncourt. See id. at 595.\\n Neither Grayson nor Vinning-El speak to the circumstanc-\\nes before us today. In both cases, the individual inmate re-\\nquested that his religious belief be accommodated even\\nthough that belief was arguably personal to him and more\\ndemanding than the ones generally followed by adherents of\\nthe religion with which he professed to be affiliated.\\nMr. Neely-Bey presents a very different situation. He does\\nnot ask the CIF to accommodate a personal belief not re-\\nquired of MSTA adherents. Rather, he asks that the CIF re-\\nquire the MSTA to accept him as a full member even though\\nhis belief system as a declared sovereign citizen differs sub-\\nstantially from that of the MSTA and MSTA liturgical prac-\\ntices require that its adherents share their religious beliefs in\\nthe course of their worship services. The MSTA consequent-\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 17\\n\\nly believes that admitting Mr. Neely-Bey as a member would\\nchallenge its teachings and, possibly, jeopardize its status.\\n This is the crux of the defendants’ position: They main-\\ntain that, had they required the MSTA to allow Mr. Neely-\\nBey to participate as a full member in Friday services, they\\nwould have violated MSTA’s associational rights. See Boy\\nScouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).\\n In Dale, a former Eagle Scout “applied for adult member-\\nship in the Boy Scouts” as an assistant scoutmaster. Id. at\\n644. The BSA initially approved the application, but later re-\\nvoked his membership after discovering that Dale was ho-\\nmosexual and had taken public stances in favor of gay\\nrights. According to the BSA, being a homosexual was anti-\\nthetical to its mission. Dale then instituted a state-court ac-\\ntion claiming that the BSA’s revocation of his membership\\nviolated New Jersey’s law prohibiting discrimination in pub-\\nlic accommodations. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed\\nwith Dale and further held that requiring BSA to accept Dale\\nas a scout leader did not violate BSA’s right to association\\nunder the First Amendment.\\n The Supreme Court reversed. It observed that “[t]he\\nforced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes\\nthe group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence\\nof that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability\\nto advocate public or private viewpoints.” Id. at 648. In as-\\nsessing whether this was the case, the Court explained that\\ndeference is owed to the group’s formulation of its “goals\\nand philosophy,” as well as its “view of what would impair\\nits expression.” Id. at 651, 653. Because the BSA believed that\\nits principles precluded the practice of homosexuality and\\nbecause “Dale’s presence in the [BSA] would … force the or-\\n\\f18 No. 17-2980\\n\\nganization to send a message … that [it] accepts homosexual\\nconduct as a legitimate form of behavior,” “the forced inclu-\\nsion of Dale would significantly affect its expression.” Id. at\\n653, 656.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey believes that the defendants’ reliance on\\nDale is misplaced. Dale, he contends, was in a leadership\\nrole, whereas he only was asking to participate as a member\\nof the MSTA. The Court in Dale, however, did not limit its\\ndiscussion to leaders of organizations, but instead asked\\nwhether “[t]he forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a\\ngroup infringes the group’s freedom of expressive associa-\\ntion.” Id. at 648. Although the relative position of the indi-\\nvidual in a group may bear on whether the group’s inclusion\\nof the individual “affects in a significant way the group’s\\nability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” id., the\\nCourt spoke in terms of “membership” as well as leadership,\\nsee id. at 654–56. Moreover, the record reflects that, as a full\\nmember of the MSTA, Mr. Neely-Bey would be speaking to\\nother members of the congregation and commenting on the\\nwords of the Prophet and passages of the Koran. Requiring\\nthe MSTA to allow an individual to speak at its worship ser-\\nvices when that person holds beliefs antithetical to its own\\nwould significantly affect its ability to preserve and pass on\\nits message.\\n Here, Chaplain Smith and the enforcement officers were\\nrequired to balance the religious practices of one adherent\\nagainst the rights of other inmates to exercise their religious\\nbeliefs in accordance with MSTA teaching. Neither Grayson\\nnor Vinning-El offers guidance for correctional officers who\\nfind themselves in this dilemma. Indeed, there do not appear\\nto be any cases that instruct prison officials on how they\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 19\\n\\nshould strike the appropriate balance between these compet-\\ning interests. 35 As we have explained previously, “[p]ublic\\nofficials can be held liable for violating clearly established\\nlaw, but not for choosing sides on a debatable issue.” O’Keefe\\nv. Chisholm, 769 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2014). The district\\ncourt, therefore, did not err in granting the defendants quali-\\nfied immunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s damages claims under\\nthe Free Exercise Clause. 36\\n 2. Claim for Injunctive Relief\\n Mr. Neely-Bey next submits that, even if the district court\\ncorrectly granted qualified immunity to the defendants on\\nhis claim for damages, it failed to recognize that his com-\\nplaint also stated a claim for injunctive relief under both the\\nFree Exercise Clause and under RLUIPA. Moreover,\\nMr. Neely-Bey continues, qualified immunity does not pro-\\ntect the defendants from a claim for injunctive relief. See\\nHannemann v. S. Door Cnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th\\nCir. 2012). Consequently, he contends, a remand is necessary\\n\\n\\n35 Indeed, Mr. Neely-Bey notes that “Defendants have cited no decision\\nsuggesting the government can rely on a group’s associational interests\\nto limit an individual’s participation in religious services, based solely on\\nhis expression of allegedly unorthodox beliefs.” Appellant’s Br. 31. That\\ncourts have not had to grapple with this difficult issue would seem to\\ncounsel the application of qualified immunity.\\n36 Notably, the defendants make only a passing reference to whether\\nallowing Mr. Neely-Bey to participate as a full member of the religion\\nwould jeopardize the security or rehabilitative concerns of the institu-\\ntion. For reasons not at all clear to us, with the exception of this single,\\noblique reference in its appellate brief, this contention, which may well\\nhave merit, is never developed.\\n\\f20 No. 17-2980\\n\\nfor the district court to consider the merits of his claim for\\ninjunctive relief.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, among other relief, asks that\\nthe defendants “cease all action against [him].” 37 When the\\ndistrict court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1915A, it nevertheless acknowledged only that he\\nwas “seek[ing] monetary relief”; the court made no mention\\nof Mr. Neely-Bey’s prayer for injunctive relief. 38 Proceeding\\non the assumption that Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims were for\\nmonetary relief alone, the court dismissed the claims against\\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight in their\\nofficial capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and\\ndirected that these defendants be removed from the docket.\\nThe court allowed only the damages claims against Chaplain\\nSmith and Officers Conley and Sidwell to go forward.\\nMr. Neely-Bey moved for reconsideration of the screening\\norder, but not on the ground that the district court had mis-\\nread his complaint to include only claims for damages.\\n a.\\n Before us, the defendants at least tacitly acknowledge\\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint requested injunctive relief. 39\\nThey assert, however, that Mr. Neely-Bey abandoned his\\nclaim for injunctive relief by not raising the issue in his mo-\\n\\n\\n37 R.1 at 6.\\n38 R.13 at 2.\\n39 See Appellees’ Br. 28 (noting that the district court believed that\\nMr. Neely-Bey was seeking only damages and acknowledging that “this\\nassumption may have been a mistake”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 21\\n\\ntion to reconsider or in his response to the motion for sum-\\nmary judgment.\\n It is the general rule that a litigant does not abandon an\\nargument by failing to raise it in a motion to reconsider.\\nHamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 897 F.3d 835, 838\\n(7th Cir. 2018) (“And it is never necessary to remonstrate\\nwith a judge after an order has been entered. Motions for re-\\nconsideration are discretionary, not obligatory.”). The de-\\nfendants nevertheless submit that, “where a plaintiff is seek-\\ning relief from judgment that is most appropriately awarded\\nby a trial court on a Rule 60 motion, such as where the plain-\\ntiff is claiming oversight, mistake or clerical error, the plain-\\ntiff may waive his right to present that type of argument on\\nappeal if he did not make the appropriate Rule 60 motion\\nbelow.” Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 958–59 (7th Cir.\\n2000). Here, they contend, the district court seems simply to\\nhave misread or overlooked the full extent of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims, and such an oversight falls neatly\\nwithin the coverage of Rule 60(b)(1). 40 Consequently, the de-\\nfendants submit that, because Mr. Neely-Bey failed to raise\\nthe district court’s oversight in a Rule 60(b) motion, he can-\\nnot now pursue his claim for injunctive relief.\\n We do not believe that Denius compels this result. First,\\nthe language on which the defendants rely was not part of\\nour holding. After discussing what might be the effect of De-\\n\\n40 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides: “(b) Grounds for\\nRelief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just\\nterms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a fi-\\nnal judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mis-\\ntake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[] ….”\\n\\f22 No. 17-2980\\n\\nnius’s failure to file a Rule 60(b) motion if the court had over-\\nlooked his claim for injunctive relief, we explained that this,\\nin fact, had not occurred: “This is not a case where the dis-\\ntrict court completely overlooked plaintiff’s claims for equi-\\ntable relief.” Id. at 959. Rather, we observed, the district court\\nvery clearly had disposed of both “Denius’s claims for mon-\\netary and equitable relief through its summary judgment\\nopinion.” Id. Thus, we did not have to decide whether Deni-\\nus’s actions constituted waiver (or abandonment) because\\nthe nature of the district court’s error did not fall within the\\nlanguage of Rule 60(b).\\n Additionally, our discussion in Denius focused on the ef-\\nfect of failing to bring a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b), how-\\never, governs motions that seek to “‘relieve a party or its le-\\ngal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceed-\\ning’ for the enumerated reasons.” Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc.,\\n788 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n60(b)). The operative order here, however, was the district\\ncourt’s screening order, which was interlocutory. See DaSilva\\nv. Rymarkiewicz, 888 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 2018). It was in\\nthat order that the court narrowed the scope of the action to\\ninclude only claims for damages. When the defendants later\\nmoved for summary judgment, they reasonably focused\\ntheir motion on the claims for damages—the only ones still\\nbefore the court. Mr. Neely-Bey’s response, as well, was di-\\nrected to the claims for damages. There was no obvious way\\nfor Mr. Neely-Bey to revisit the dismissed claims in the brief-\\ning on the summary-judgment motion. Moreover, it was the\\ndistrict court’s summary-judgment ruling that immediately\\npreceded its entry of final judgment, the triggering event for\\na Rule 60(b) motion. Under these circumstances,\\nMr. Neely-Bey was not required to seek relief under Rule\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 23\\n\\n60(b) for the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his claims\\nfor injunctive relief. Consequently, Mr. Neely-Bey has not\\nwaived, or otherwise abandoned, his claim for injunctive re-\\nlief under the Free Exercise Clause. 41\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n41 Mr. Neely-Bey’s situation is readily distinguishable from the other\\ncases on which the defendants rely. See Heiar v. Crawford Cnty, 746 F.2d\\n1190, 1196 (7th Cir. 1984); Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d\\n335 (5th Cir. 2015). In Heiar, we held that the defendants had waived\\ntheir statute-of-limitations defense because, although included in the\\nanswer, they never again raised it—in a dispositive, pretrial motion, as\\nan item in the pretrial order, or in a motion for judgment at trial. See 746\\nF.2d at 1196. Here, however, the district court eliminated the claim for\\ninjunctive relief sua sponte, and there was no clear opportunity for\\nMr. Neely-Bey to raise the issue again with the district court before the\\nentry of final judgment. In Peterson, the plaintiff’s complaint had includ-\\ned a prayer for “[a]ny further legal and equitable relief to which Peterson\\nmay be justly entitled.” 806 F.3d at 339 (alteration in original). However,\\nPeterson did not request specific injunctive relief until after a jury verdict\\nin his favor. The district court granted the injunction, but the Fifth Cir-\\ncuit reversed and vacated the injunction. The Fifth Circuit explained that\\nthe defendant had been prejudiced by Peterson’s inaction because, had it\\nknown that injunctive relief was at issue, it would have called additional\\nwitnesses and presented evidence specifically directed to that claim for\\nrelief. However, it had been deprived of that opportunity by the plain-\\ntiff’s failure to raise the issue earlier. Here, the defendants include boil-\\nerplate language that allowing Mr. Neely-Bey to renew his claim for in-\\njunctive relief “would prejudice the defendants by inhibiting their ability\\nto defend against Neely-Bey’s claims and substantially increase the de-\\nfendants’ potential liability.” Appellees’ Br. 32. However, the defendants\\ndo not explain how or why this is the case. Unlike the defendant in Peter-\\nson, they have not lost their ability to present evidence in opposition to\\nthis claim, and they do not explain how revival of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim\\nfor injunctive relief might substantially increase their potential liability.\\n\\f24 No. 17-2980\\n\\n b.\\n Waiver and abandonment are the only bases that the de-\\nfendants have offered for affirming the district court’s dis-\\nmissal of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief. Alt-\\nhough “[w]e may affirm a district court’s dismissal order on\\nany basis supported by the record,” Craig v. Rich Twp. High\\nSch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013), we cannot\\nconclude, on this limited record, that judgment in favor of\\nthe defendants is warranted.\\n To establish a free exercise claim, Mr. Neely-Bey “had to\\nsubmit evidence from which a jury could reasonably find\\nthat the defendants personally and unjustifiably placed a\\nsubstantial burden on his religious practices.” Thompson v.\\nHolm, 809 F.3d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Hernandez v.\\nC.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989)). The Supreme Court has ex-\\nplained that a substantial burden is one that “put[s] substan-\\ntial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to\\nviolate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 718\\n(1981). In the prison context, such a burden is justified if it is\\n“reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.”\\nThompson, 809 F.3d at 380 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,\\n89–91 (1987)).\\n Here, Mr. Neely-Bey asserts, and the defendants do not\\ncontest, that participation in Friday services, including\\nstanding to pray and discussing the words of the Prophet,\\nare central practices of the MSTA faith. The ban enforced by\\nthe CIF prevents Mr. Neely-Bey from fully participating in\\nthe Friday services. The question therefore is whether the\\nban is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 25\\n\\n Mr. Neely-Bey maintains that “the sole reason offered by\\nDefendants for these restrictions was enforcement of a\\nmemorandum from an outside MSTA volunteer minister.” 42\\nAccording to Mr. Neely-Bey, “[i]t was, purely and simply, a\\nreaction to perceived religious heresy,” and the defendants’\\nenforcement of religious orthodoxy “is not a legitimate peno-\\nlogical interest.” 43\\n As we already have discussed, however, this statement\\ndoes not fairly characterize the situation. Brother Doles Bey’s\\nmemo simply does not request that the prison enforce any\\nreligious doctrine. It does not ask the CIF, for instance, to\\nserve MSTA adherents only porkless meals (a requirement\\nof the faith) and to enforce that abstinence through disci-\\npline. Instead, the memo simply requested that the CIF al-\\nlow the MSTA to choose those who may speak authoritative-\\nly on matters of faith. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nassertion, there is evidence in the record to establish that the\\nCIF’s actions were motivated by a desire to protect the rights\\nof other MSTA adherents at the CIF. The memorandum from\\nBrother Doles Bey clearly articulates a concern that, if\\nMr. Neely-Bey, a professed sovereign citizen, were allowed\\nto speak at MSTA services, the congregation of worshippers\\nmight be disbanded. It also refers to the need for the MSTA\\nto conduct the Friday prayer services in accordance with the\\nrequirements of its tradition. 44\\n\\n\\n42 Appellant’s Br. 28.\\n43 Id. at 28–29.\\n44\\n See R.81 at 72 (“The Acting Chairman presides over the[] meetings and\\nmakes sure that the meeting is opened and closed according to the laws\\n (continued … )\\n\\f26 No. 17-2980\\n\\n Although the term “penological interests” is most typi-\\ncally articulated in terms of a penal institution’s interest in\\nsecurity and financial stability, it is well-established that the\\nterm also encompasses far wider concerns of just governance\\nin the penal setting. See, e.g., Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530–\\n32 (2006) (plurality opinion) (holding that encouraging pro-\\ngress toward rehabilitation serves legitimate penological ob-\\njectives); Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 364 (3d Cir. 2006) (not-\\ning that “the health and safety of inmates … are legitimate\\npenological interests”); Goodwin v. Turner, 908 F.2d 1395,\\n1399–1400 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that treating male and fe-\\nmale inmates equally furthered a legitimate penological in-\\nterest). We have no doubt that the term also involves the\\nprotection of the constitutional rights of other prisoners. In-\\ndeed, prison officials are under a constitutional duty to pro-\\ntect those rights. We therefore have no doubt that the prison\\nofficials are on solid ground in maintaining that they have a\\nright, and indeed an obligation, to protect the right of other\\nprisoners who adhere to the MSTA faith to worship in a\\ncongregational manner to the extent that such a practice is\\nconsistent with other penal objectives.\\n Of course, in asserting such an objective and in choosing\\na means to achieve such an objective, Turner v. Safley, 482\\nU.S. 78, 89–90 (1987), teaches that prison officials cannot rely\\non the mere incantation of a penal interest but must come\\nforward with record evidence that substantiates that the in-\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nand Customs of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. and sets\\nthe tone for services to flow smoothly and without [sic] from the\\nbody/membership; and guests.”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 27\\n\\nterest is truly at risk and that prison officials have chosen an\\nappropriate manner to assert that interest. Before us, the de-\\nfendants justify their actions only in terms of the MSTA’s\\nrights without any reference to the possible impact on the\\nsecurity, operations, or finances of the CIF. Under such cir-\\ncumstances, we cannot conclude that the defendants have\\narticulated a legitimate “penological” reason for denying\\nMr. Neely-Bey full participation in MSTA’s Friday services. 45\\n The merits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief\\ntherefore remain an open question. In considering this ques-\\ntion, the district court should not only determine the propri-\\nety of injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause, but\\npossible relief under RLUIPA. We have observed that, when\\na pro se prisoner asserts a claim under the Free Exercise\\nClause, the district court should interpret that constitutional\\nclaim to include a statutory claim under RLUIPA. Grayson,\\n666 F.3d at 451.46 RLUIPA prohibits prison officials from\\n\\n45 In writing the Report of Conduct, Chaplain Smith interpreted\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s actions as intending to interfere with and disrupt MSTA\\nservices on Holy Days. See R.81 at 73. Avoiding disruption of, and inter-\\nference with, the meetings of authorized groups at the CIF is a legitimate\\npenological interest. However, as already discussed, the defendants have\\nnot argued that this was a consideration in the action they took against\\nMr. Neely-Bey.\\n46 Although damages are not available under RLUIPA, injunctive relief\\nis. See Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, because\\nsovereign immunity and qualified immunity protect government offi-\\ncials only from damages suits, those doctrines cannot protect officials\\nfrom claims for injunctive relief brought under RLUIPA. See Sorrentino v.\\nGodinez, 777 F.3d 410, 415 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Sovereign immunity normally\\ndoes not bar suits for injunctive relief in federal court alleging that a state\\nofficial violated the federal constitution or laws.”); Hannemann v. S. Door\\n (continued … )\\n\\f28 No. 17-2980\\n\\n“impos[ing] a substantial burden on the religious exercise”\\nof an inmate “unless the government demonstrates that im-\\nposition of the burden on that person … is the least restric-\\ntive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental inter-\\nest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Because RLUIPA “confers\\ngreater religious rights on prisoners than the free exercise\\nclause has been interpreted to do,” Grayson, 666 F.3d at 451,\\nit is possible that Mr. Neely-Bey is entitled to statutory in-\\njunctive relief even if he cannot establish a right to relief un-\\nder the Free Exercise Clause.\\n A word of caution. On remand, the district court first\\nshould consider whether subsequent events have rendered\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. Prior to\\noral argument, the defendants notified us that\\nMr. Neely-Bey had been transferred from the CIF to the\\nWestville Correctional Facility. At oral argument, counsel for\\nthe defendants suggested that the transfer rendered\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. However,\\nthere is no evidence in the record regarding how\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s transfer will affect his ability to participate\\nin MSTA worship. Moreover, we do not know the likelihood\\nof Mr. Neely-Bey being transferred back to the CIF. See\\nYoung v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 373–74 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting\\nthat the likelihood of being transferred back to an institution\\nis a factual determination for the district court). We leave it,\\ntherefore, to the district court to determine on a more devel-\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nCnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he defense of quali-\\nfied immunity does not protect defendants from an action for injunctive\\nrelief.”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 29\\n\\noped record the effect of Mr. Neely-Bey’s transfer on his\\nclaims for injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause\\nand RLUIPA.\\n In sum, we agree with the district court that the defend-\\nants are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nclaims for damages under the Free Exercise Clause. Howev-\\ner, the district court failed to consider Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nclaims for injunctive relief under either the Free Exercise\\nClause or under RLUIPA. We therefore remand to the dis-\\ntrict court for further consideration of these claims in the\\nfirst instance, including the effect of any subsequent events\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\\nB. Establishment Clause\\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the district court erred\\nin failing to address his Establishment Clause claim. He fur-\\nther asserts that, had the district court considered the claim,\\nit would have concluded that the defendants violated the\\nEstablishment Clause in enforcing Brother Doles Bey’s pro-\\nhibition against his full participation in MSTA meetings.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey is correct that the district court’s order\\ngranting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment did\\nnot explicitly mention the Establishment Clause. However, it\\ndid speak more broadly of whether the defendants’ actions\\nhad violated Mr. Neely-Bey’s “rights under the First\\nAmendment.” 47 It concluded that there was no controlling\\nauthority “directly establishing that the defendants’ conduct\\nin this case, where state officials enforced a ban from partici-\\n\\n\\n47 R.84 at 8.\\n\\f30 No. 17-2980\\n\\npating in religious activities that was put in place by the re-\\nligious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights under\\nthe First Amendment.” 48 It therefore granted qualified im-\\nmunity to the defendants. We turn, therefore, to the question\\nwhether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim under the Establishment Clause.\\n 1.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey submits that, at the time Chaplain Smith\\nlimited his participation in MSTA meetings, it was clear that\\nsuch action violated the Establishment Clause. He begins by\\nnoting that then, as now, “[a] government policy or practice\\nviolates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular pur-\\npose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or\\n(3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.” Kauf-\\nman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing\\nLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971)). According to\\nMr. Neely-Bey, the defendants’ actions violated all three\\nprongs.\\n First, he claims that there is no secular purpose for ban-\\nning him from participating in MSTA Holy Day services. In-\\nstead, he contends, the defendants’ “only reason for impos-\\ning this restriction is a desire to enforce the religious di-\\nrective of an outside volunteer minister, a directive that is\\nbased entirely on religious orthodoxy.”49 We cannot accept\\nthis submission. In determining whether a government ac-\\ntion has a secular purpose, “a government’s characterization\\nof its purpose is entitled to deference, although courts must\\n\\n48 Id. at 7–8.\\n49 Appellant’s Br. 41.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 31\\n\\nensure that the government’s characterization is sincere.”\\nVision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Fairly read, the de-\\nfendants have stated that their reason for giving effect to\\nBrother Doles Bey’s memo was to protect the associational\\nrights of the MSTA to choose, in the context of a religious\\nworship ceremony, participants and leaders of the ob-\\nservance. Chaplain Smith’s directive to Mr. Neely-Bey\\nmakes this objective crystal clear. The directive explicitly\\nrecognizes Mr. Neely-Bey “as a guest of MST of A,” who\\ncould “listen,” but not instruct at MSTA meetings. 50 In pro-\\ntecting the rights of the other prisoners, as was their obliga-\\ntion, the defendants may have reinforced incidentally the\\ntenets of that faith. There is no evidence in the record, how-\\never, their actions were designed to produce such an effect. 51\\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the primary effect of\\nthe action is to advance the orthodoxy of the MSTA. He be-\\nlieves that his situation mirrors the “pernicious fusion” of\\nchurch and state that the Court condemned in Larkin v.\\nGrendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), and Board of Education\\n\\n\\n\\n50 R.81 at 78.\\n51 Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that he is being singled out because of\\nhis religious beliefs. “The restriction imposed by Defendants,”\\nMr. Neely-Bey explains, “which prohibits [him] from speaking or stand-\\ning during Friday Holy Day services while others do so[,] is not based on\\nany neutral or generally applicable rules about conduct or even member-\\nship in religious groups or participation in religious services.” Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 42. It is, however, based on a neutral rule—that religious asso-\\nciations should be able to control their own leadership and membership.\\n\\f32 No. 17-2980\\n\\nof Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687\\n(1994). 52\\n In Larkin, a Massachusetts state law provided that estab-\\nlishments “located within a radius of five hundred feet of a\\nchurch or school shall not be licensed for the sale of alcoholic\\nbeverages if the governing body of such church or school\\nfile[d] [a] written objection” to the license. 459 U.S. at 117 (in-\\nternal quotation marks omitted). The Court determined that\\nthe statute resulted in an unconstitutional cessation of gov-\\nernmental authority to a religious institution:\\n Section 16C gives churches the right to deter-\\n mine whether a particular applicant will be\\n granted a liquor license, or even which one of\\n several competing applicants will receive a li-\\n cense.\\n The churches’ power under the statute is\\n standardless, calling for no reasons, findings,\\n or reasoned conclusions. That power may\\n therefore be used by churches to promote goals\\n beyond insulating the church from undesirable\\n neighbors; it could be employed for explicitly\\n religious goals, for example, favoring liquor li-\\n censes for members of that congregation or\\n adherents of that faith.\\nId. at 125. It therefore did “not strain” the Court’s “prior\\nholdings to say that the statute can be seen as having a ‘pri-\\nmary’ and ‘principal’ effect of advancing religion.” Id. at 126.\\n\\n\\n52 Id. at 44.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 33\\n\\n Similarly, in Kiryas Joel Village School District, a special\\nstate law had created a school district, the lines of which\\nwere the same as the lines of property owned by a Hasidic\\nJewish congregation. The result was that the provision of\\npublic educational services within a district had been\\nawarded based on religious views and was completely con-\\ntrolled by a religious body. The Court observed that the Free\\nExercise and Establishment Clauses “‘compel[] the State to\\npursue a course of “neutrality” toward religion,’ favoring\\nneither one religion over others nor religious adherents col-\\nlectively over nonadherents.” Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill.\\nSch. Dist., 512 U.S. at 696 (quoting Comm. for Pub. Ed. & Reli-\\ngious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 792–93 (1973)). The\\nstatute at issue, the Court explained, “depart[ed] from this\\nconstitutional command by delegating the State’s discretion-\\nary authority over public schools to a group defined by its\\ncharacter as a religious community, in a legal and historical\\ncontext that gives no assurance that governmental power\\nhas been or will be exercised neutrally.” Id.\\n In both Larken and Kiryas Joel Village School District, there-\\nfore, a formal enactment ceded a discretionary function of\\ngovernance to a religious body. The CIF, however, has not\\nceded disciplinary authority to the MSTA. The CIF has not\\ngiven the MSTA the power to discipline an MSTA member\\nif, for instance, the member fails to attend Friday services.\\nInstead, the MSTA asked the CIF defendants to protect its\\nright to control the religious content of the MSTA’s own\\nmeetings by determining who may or may not teach its con-\\ngregants. Here, a religious entity has not been given carte\\nblanche to administer a government program or bestow a\\ngovernment benefit as it sees fit.\\n\\f34 No. 17-2980\\n\\n Finally, Mr. Neely-Bey submits that the CIF’s enforce-\\nment of Brother Doles Bey’s memo violates the entangle-\\nment prong of the Lemon test. To establish excessive entan-\\nglement with religion, Mr. Neely-Bey has to “demonstrate\\n‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of\\nthe sovereign in religious activity.’” Vision Church, 468 F.3d\\nat 995 (quoting Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equaliza-\\ntion of California, 493 U.S. 378, 393 (1990)). “The general rule\\nis that, to constitute excessive entanglement, the government\\naction must involve ‘intrusive government participation in,\\nsupervision of, or inquiry into religious affairs.’” Id. (quoting\\nUnited States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 631\\n(7th Cir. 2000)).\\n Mr. Neely-Bey does not address these standards or sug-\\ngest how the evidence in the record establishes the level of\\nintrusiveness required for entanglement. Instead, he submits\\nthat Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009), necessitates\\nsuch a finding of entanglement.\\n In Nelson, an Illinois inmate had requested a meatless di-\\net on Fridays as an act of penance in accordance with his\\nCatholic faith. The correctional facility’s chaplain, Miller, re-\\nviewed the request, “cross-checking the inmate’s declared\\nreligious affiliation to determine if a religious diet was re-\\nquired”; specifically, he “looked for confirmation of the reli-\\ngious dietary tenet ‘on paper’—that is, he looked for confir-\\nmation of the requirement in some ‘church document’—as\\nopposed to inquiring regarding the spiritual goals of the in-\\nmate.” Id. at 872. The prison chaplain denied the request,\\nand, in his denial, he “cited several Bible passages purport-\\nedly contradicting Nelson’s beliefs regarding penance.” Id. at\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 35\\n\\n881. Eventually, at the direction of the warden, Nelson re-\\nceived a vegan diet.\\n Nelson filed an action against Miller and several other\\nadministrators at the correctional facility, alleging, among\\nother claims, a violation of the Establishment Clause. Specif-\\nically, Nelson alleged that Miller had “favored Muslim and\\nAfrican Hebrew Israelite prisoners by approving vegan diets\\nfor those prisoners without obtaining written verification\\nthat such diets were required by their religions.” Id. at 880–\\n81. The district court, however, “found that Nelson had not\\nproven a violation of the establishment clause because there\\nwere valid neutral reasons for Miller’s actions in this re-\\ngard.” Id. at 881. On appeal, we agreed with the district\\ncourt. We explained that the correctional facility’s regula-\\ntions\\n provided that prisoners could abstain from\\n “any foods the consumption of which violates\\n their required religious tenets” and the district\\n court concluded that Miller had required doc-\\n umentation because he was unfamiliar with\\n any Catholic “required religious tenet” which\\n necessitated a non-meat diet. Under the district\\n court’s reasoning, Miller did not ask Muslim\\n and African Hebrew Israelite prisoners to\\n submit verification because he understood\\n from his experience that a limited diet was part\\n of many of these prisoners’ religious practice.\\nId.\\n Nevertheless, we observed, Miller’s denial, which “cited\\nseveral Bible passages purportedly contradicting Nelson’s\\n\\f36 No. 17-2980\\n\\nbeliefs regarding penance, improperly entangled [Miller] in\\nmatters of religious interpretation. It simply [wa]s not ap-\\npropriate for a prison official to argue with a prisoner re-\\ngarding the objective truth of a prisoner’s religious belief.”\\nId.\\n We fail to see Nelson’s application to the circumstances\\nhere. Chaplain Smith did not undertake his own review of\\nMSTA doctrine. Rather, he was told by the MSTA minister at\\nthe CIF, Brother Doles Bey, 53 that Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession\\nof sovereign citizenship 54 precluded him from full member-\\nship and participation in the MSTA. This tension between\\nthe tenets of the MSTA and the sovereign-citizen movement\\nis well documented in our case law. See Bey v. State, 847 F.3d\\n559, 560–61 (7th Cir. 2017). Chaplain Smith accepted the\\nstatement of the MSTA representative; he made no commen-\\ntary at all concerning the “objective truth” of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s beliefs. He simply forbade him from dis-\\nrupting the MSTA service.\\n In sum, at the very least, Chaplain Smith did not act in a\\nmanner inconsistent with existing precedent. See al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. at 741. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment granting qualified immunity to the defendants on\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the Establish-\\nment Clause.\\n\\n\\n\\n53 Again, there is no question that Brother Doles Bey is the designated\\nrepresentative of the MSTA at the CIF. See supra note 9.\\n54As noted previously, see supra note 8, Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession of\\nsovereign-citizen beliefs is not at issue here.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 37\\n\\n 2.\\n As we already have noted, qualified immunity protects\\nthe defendants only against claims for damages; it does not\\nprotect the defendants against claims for injunctive relief. See\\nHannemann, 673 F.3d at 758. The district court failed to rec-\\nognize Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief and,\\ntherefore, never addressed the merits of those claims. On\\nappeal, the defendants, as well, have failed to address the\\nmerits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under\\nthe Establishment Clause. They simply maintain that\\nMr. Neely-Bey has waived or abandoned any claims for in-\\njunctive relief—a contention we already have rejected.\\n If the record contained any evidence that might support\\nthe granting of injunctive relief, we would vacate the district\\ncourt’s judgment in this respect and remand for further pro-\\nceedings. However, as our earlier discussion of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s Establishment Clause argument demon-\\nstrates, the record is entirely devoid of any evidence that\\nmight form the basis for such a claim. Consequently, the dis-\\ntrict court need not revisit the matter of injunctive relief on\\nremand.\\n Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages\\nunder the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. We also\\ndirect the district court to enter judgment for the defendants\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Es-\\ntablishment Clause. However, we remand the case to the\\ndistrict court for it to consider, in the first instance,\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Free\\n\\f38 No. 17-2980\\n\\nExercise Clause and under RLUIPA. In undertaking this\\ntask, the district court first should ensure that the controver-\\nsy has not become moot.\\n The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.\\n AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":167,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578316,"string":"4,578,316"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"State of Illinois v. City of Chicago"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2805"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2805\\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\nCITY OF CHICAGO,\\n Defendant-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF:\\n FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7,\\n Proposed Intervenor.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17-cv-6260 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. On August 29, 2017, the State of Illi-\\nnois filed suit in federal court against the City of Chicago, al-\\nleging that the Chicago Police Department’s use-of-force pol-\\nicies and practices violate the federal constitution and Illinois\\nlaw. Two days later, the parties moved to stay the proceedings\\n\\f2 No. 18-2805\\n\\nwhile they negotiated a consent decree. Almost immediately\\nafter the State filed the complaint, the Fraternal Order of Po-\\nlice, Lodge No. 7, publicly indicated its opposition to any con-\\nsent decree, citing fears that the decree might impair its col-\\nlective bargaining rights. For months, the Lodge monitored\\nthe ongoing negotiations and met informally with the State’s\\nrepresentatives. But the Lodge waited until June 6, 2018, to file\\na motion to intervene in the suit. The district court denied the\\nmotion to intervene as untimely. Because the Lodge knew\\nfrom the beginning that a consent decree might impact its in-\\nterests but delayed its motion for nearly a year, and because\\nits allegations of prejudice are speculative, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In April 2016, the Chicago Police Accountability Task\\nForce issued a report finding that the Chicago Police Depart-\\nment’s “response to violence is not sufficiently imbued with\\nConstitutional policing tactics.” (R. 1-1 at 14.) In January 2017,\\nthe United States Department of Justice released a report con-\\ncluding that the Chicago Police Department exhibits a pattern\\nor practice of the unconstitutional use of force. The report\\nfound that Chicago’s inadequate accountability mechanisms\\nare a significant contributor to the repeated constitutional vi-\\nolations. The Department of Justice suggested that effective\\nreform was unlikely without “[a] court-ordered, over-arching\\nplan … that is overseen by a federal judge.” (Id. at 211.)\\n On August 29, 2017, the State of Illinois filed suit against\\nthe City of Chicago, alleging that the City’s policing practices\\ninvolve the repeated use of excessive force. Two days later,\\nthe parties moved to stay proceedings while they engaged in\\nconsent decree negotiations. The district court granted that\\nmotion.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 3\\n\\n Immediately after the State filed suit, the Lodge publicly\\nexpressed its opposition to any consent decree. In a news ar-\\nticle published the evening of August 29, 2017, the Lodge’s\\npresident, Kevin Graham, described a consent decree as a “a\\npotential catastrophe for Chicago.” (R. 73 at 4 & n.1.) Mr. Gra-\\nham elaborated on his opposition to a consent decree in the\\nLodge’s September 2017 newsletter. He voiced the fear that a\\nconsent decree might “seriously threaten our collective bar-\\ngaining rights” and assured the Lodge that no one in his ad-\\nministration believed that a consent decree was “necessary.”\\n(R. 73-1 at 13.)\\n Despite these public concerns over the suit’s potential im-\\npact on collective bargaining rights, the Lodge did not seek to\\nintervene at that time. Instead, during the subsequent months\\nof negotiation between the State and City, the Lodge repeat-\\nedly met separately with the State. At those meetings, the\\nLodge expressed its concern that the inchoate consent decree\\nmight conflict with provisions of the Collective Bargaining\\nAgreement (“CBA”) or with Illinois statutes which protect po-\\nlice officers. The State told the Lodge that it did not intend to\\nintrude into matters of police officer discipline or other “core\\nmandatory matters.” (R. 81-4 at 6.)\\n To that end, and to avoid the need for the Lodge to inter-\\nvene, the State and Lodge focused on creating “carve-out”\\nlanguage that would ensure the consent decree left CBA\\nrights intact. During these informal discussions, which began\\nin the fall of 2017 and continued well into the spring of 2018,\\nthe State often assured the Lodge that it was working with the\\nCity to avoid any impact on CBA rights. The State never pro-\\nvided the Lodge with copies of the proposed consent decree\\nor with finalized carve-out language. Nevertheless, the State’s\\n\\f4 No. 18-2805\\n\\nrepresentative, Gary Caplan, assured the Lodge that the draft\\nconsent decree did not conflict with the CBA and that, if any\\nconsent decree provisions did conflict, the CBA would con-\\ntrol.\\n Between March 21, 2018, and May 25, 2018, the district\\ncourt met four times with the parties to discuss the consent\\ndecree negotiations. On two of those occasions, Lodge repre-\\nsentatives appeared at the courtroom and requested permis-\\nsion to attend the session. Both times, the City and State re-\\nfused to consent to the request.\\n On June 6, 2018, the Lodge moved to intervene. The Lodge\\nhas offered a variety of explanations for its decision to seek\\nintervention. In the motion to intervene, the Lodge attributed\\nthe motion to its discovery that, on May 15, 2018, a number of\\ncommunity groups “published and undoubtedly submitted\\nto the [State] a report that contains recommendations for the\\nconsent decree.” (R. 51 at 5.) The Lodge emphasized that the\\nCBA “contains provisions addressing a number of the sub-\\njects raised in the complaint filed by the Office of the Illinois\\nAttorney General in this case.” (Id. at 6.) Because many of the\\nrecommendations made by the community groups would re-\\nquire “substantive modifications” to practices or activities\\ncovered by the CBA, the Lodge believed that intervention was\\nnecessary. The Lodge also argued that the complaint—filed\\nnine months earlier—sought injunctive relief that would con-\\nflict with the CBA. Thus, at the time, the Lodge did not cite its\\nexclusion from negotiations as a reason for intervention. Like-\\nwise, the Lodge did not move to intervene due to surprise lan-\\nguage in the consent decree (because the Lodge had not yet\\nreceived a copy of the draft consent decree).\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 5\\n\\n In early July 2018, the Lodge filed a motion to hold pro-\\nceedings in abeyance while the court considered the motion\\nto intervene. In that motion, the Lodge argued that it had\\n“reason to believe that the consent decree will impact the col-\\nlective bargaining agreement,” but the Lodge based that be-\\nlief “on the January 2017 Department of Justice report … and\\nthe representations in the [August 31, 2017] motion to stay\\nconcerning the failure of the City to administer effective po-\\nlice discipline.” (R. 65 at 2.)\\n On July 27, 2018, the State and City made the proposed\\nconsent decree public. The draft includes numerous provi-\\nsions which the Lodge believes conflict with the disciplinary\\nand investigative provisions of the CBA. The proposed con-\\nsent decree also contains a paragraph addressing conflicts be-\\ntween the consent decree and CBAs:\\n 687. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to\\n (a) alter any of the CBAs between the City and the\\n Unions; or (b) impair or conflict with the collective\\n bargaining rights of employees in those units under\\n the IPLRA. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be\\n interpreted as obligating the City or the Unions to\\n violate (i) the terms of the CBAs, including any suc-\\n cessor CBAs resulting from the negotiation process\\n … mandated by the IPLRA with respect to the sub-\\n ject of wages, hours and terms and conditions of em-\\n ployment unless such terms violate the U.S. Consti-\\n tution, Illinois law, or public policy, or (ii) any bar-\\n gaining obligations under the IPLRA, and/or waive\\n any rights or obligations thereunder. In negotiating\\n Successor CBAs … , the City shall use its best efforts\\n to secure modifications to the CBAs consistent with\\n the terms of this Consent Decree, or to the extent\\n\\f6 No. 18-2805\\n\\n necessary to provide for the effective implementa-\\n tion of the provisions of this Consent Decree.\\n\\n(R. 81-2 at 217.)\\n On August 8, 2018, the district court directed the State,\\nCity, and Lodge to submit supplemental briefs addressing the\\nLodge’s contention that the consent decree would adversely\\naffect CBA rights. In particular, the district court directed the\\nLodge to explain whether ¶ 687 of the draft consent decree\\nameliorated its concerns. On August 16, 2018, after receiving\\nthe supplemental briefing, the court denied the motion to in-\\ntervene as untimely. The Lodge appealed.\\n While the Lodge’s appeal has been pending, the district\\ncourt’s consideration of the draft consent decree has contin-\\nued. The Lodge moved to stay review of the consent decree\\nduring the pendency of its appeal, but the district court has\\nnot yet ruled on that motion. The district court held the fair-\\nness hearing on October 24 and 25, 2018. Prior to that hearing,\\nthe district court received hundreds of written comments, in-\\ncluding one from the Lodge. Given the level of interest, the\\ndistrict court limited participation in the fairness hearing to a\\nrandomly selected group of applicants, each of which spoke\\nfor five minutes. The record is unclear whether any Lodge\\nmembers received an opportunity to speak at the fairness\\nhearing. But, in the weeks since the hearing, the Lodge has\\nsubmitted numerous supplemental comments from its mem-\\nbers.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n Because denial of a motion to intervene essentially ends\\nthe litigation for the movant, such orders are final and appeal-\\nable. Reich v. ABC/York-Estes Corp., 64 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 7\\n\\n1995). The Lodge sought to intervene as of right, meaning the\\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) ap-\\nply: “(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the sub-\\nject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a practi-\\ncal matter, of that interest by the disposition of the action; and\\n(4) lack of adequate representation of the interest by the exist-\\ning parties to the action.” Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 346 (7th\\nCir. 1994) (quoting Southmark Corp. v. Cagan, 950 F.2d 416, 418\\n(7th Cir. 1991)). “A motion to intervene as a matter of right,\\nmoreover, should not be dismissed unless it appears to a cer-\\ntainty that the intervenor is not entitled to relief under any set\\nof facts which could be proved under the complaint.” Reich,\\n64 F.3d at 321 (quoting Lake Investors Dev. Group v. Egidi Dev.\\nGroup, 715 F.2d 1256, 1258 (7th Cir. 1983)). “[W]e must accept\\nas true the non-conclusory allegations of the motion.” Id. The\\ndistrict court found that the Lodge’s motion satisfied the final\\nthree requirements but denied the motion to intervene after\\nconcluding it was untimely. For that reason, we focus solely\\non the timeliness requirement.\\n “We look to four factors to determine whether a motion is\\ntimely: ‘(1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should\\nhave known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused\\nto the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the in-\\ntervenor if the motion is denied; (4) any other unusual circum-\\nstances.’” Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719\\nF.3d 785, 797–98 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sokaogon Chippewa\\nCmty. v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2000)). When the\\ndistrict court denies a motion for intervention as untimely, we\\nreview for abuse of discretion. Id.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2805\\n\\n A. Knowledge of Interest\\n The district court found that the Lodge should have\\nknown of its interest in the suit from the time the State filed\\nsuit. Because nine months passed before the Lodge sought to\\nintervene, the motion was untimely. Now, the Lodge argues\\nthat the district court erred because it did not learn its inter-\\nests might be impaired until “after the Lodge was shut out of\\nsettlement discussions and the Lodge had received infor-\\nmation from confidential sources that its contractual rights\\nwould be impaired.” (Appellant’s Br. at 24.)\\n “A prospective intervenor must move promptly to inter-\\nvene as soon as it knows or has reason to know that its inter-\\nests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litiga-\\ntion.” Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701\\n(7th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Sokaogon Chippewa,\\n214 F.3d at 949 (“As soon as a prospective intervenor knows\\nor has reason to know that his interests might be adversely af-\\nfected by the outcome of the litigation he must move\\npromptly to intervene.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added);\\nReich, 64 F.3d at 321 (“[W]e determine timeliness from the\\ntime the potential intervenors learn that their interest might be\\nimpaired.”) (emphasis added); City of Bloomington, Ind. v.\\nWestinghouse Elec. Corp., 824 F.2d 531, 535 (7th Cir. 1987) (find-\\ning a motion to intervene untimely because the movant “had\\nknowledge that its interests could be affected more than 11\\nmonths prior to the time it sought intervention”). Thus, we\\nmeasure from when the applicant has reason to know its in-\\nterests might be adversely affected, not from when it knows\\nfor certain that they will be.\\n The Lodge does not dispute that, immediately after the\\nState filed the lawsuit, it publicly opposed any consent decree.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 9\\n\\nIn fact, Lodge President Graham asserted in his September\\n2017 newsletter article that a consent decree “could seriously\\nthreaten ... collective bargaining rights.” (R. 73-1 at 13.) The\\nconclusion that the City, State, and Lodge do not share inter-\\nests is hardly remarkable. The Lodge’s very existence is\\nrooted in the competing interests between its members and\\nthe City. And the complaint emphasized the need for in-\\ncreased accountability and other significant reforms which\\nwould inevitably impact police officer interests. Thus, the\\nLodge waited nine months from the time it became clear that\\nthe lawsuit might affect its interests. The Lodge’s delay ren-\\nders the motion untimely. See Westinghouse, 824 F.2d at 535\\n(“[A]n examination of the initial factor in our analysis, the\\nlength of time the prospective intervenor knew or reasonably\\nshould have known of its interest before it petitioned to inter-\\nvene (11 months), clearly establishes that [the] motion to in-\\ntervene was untimely.”).\\n The Lodge argues that the timeliness inquiry should in-\\nstead run from the time it determined that the State was not\\nprotecting its interests. Specifically, the Lodge contends that\\nit reasonably relied on the State’s assurances that it was pro-\\ntecting the Lodge’s interests.\\n The cases the Lodge relies on offer it no aid. In several\\nprior cases, we have indicated that intervention may be timely\\nwhere the movant promptly seeks intervention upon learning\\nthat a party is not representing its interests. See Reich, 64 F.3d\\nat 321–22 (reversing denial of the motion to intervene because\\nthe movants “reasonably believed their employer was repre-\\nsenting their interests and, considering the believed adequacy\\nof representation, could not have legitimately petitioned to in-\\ntervene”); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminium, 25 F.3d\\n\\f10 No. 18-2805\\n\\n1174, 1183 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[W]here a party induces an appli-\\ncant to refrain from intervening and there is reasonable reli-\\nance, the applicantʹs motion should not fail on timeliness\\ngrounds.”); United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1256, 1263\\n(7th Cir. 1989) (“[W]hen a federal judicial decree unexpect-\\nedly impairs settled expectations, and does so on what might\\nappear to be arbitrary and discriminatory grounds, the judge\\nis obliged to listen to the victims of the decree when they\\nmake prompt application to intervene.”); Sokaogon, 214 F.3d\\nat 949 (characterizing City of Chicago as a case “where the\\nwhite female police officers who wanted to intervene could\\nnot have anticipated that the new procedures would discrim-\\ninate against them”).\\n These are all cases where the intervenor could not have\\nreasonably anticipated that its interests were at issue or un-\\nrepresented until immediately prior to the attempted inter-\\nvention. But where the intervenor “has known all along that\\nits interests are directly pitted against” those of the parties,\\nthen the mere fact that the precise outcome of the litigation\\nwas unexpected does not restart the timeliness analysis.\\nSokaogon, 214 F.3d at 950. Reich, City of Chicago, and Alcan sup-\\nport affirmance because the Lodge has not shown that it rea-\\nsonably believed that its interests were not at issue or pro-\\ntected, much less that those interests were then unexpectedly\\nimpaired.\\n The Lodge emphasizes that State’s representatives repeat-\\nedly assured them that the consent decree would not impact\\nCBA rights. But the very fact that the Lodge and State were\\ndiscussing the need for “carve-out” language makes clear that\\nboth anticipated that the consent decree would address mat-\\nters which arguably fell under the purview of the CBA. The\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 11\\n\\nState also refused to provide copies of the draft proposals the\\nState and City were exchanging. And the State and City ex-\\ncluded the Lodge from the settlement conferences with the\\ndistrict court, despite the Lodge showing up and asking to be\\nadmitted. Thus, there were many indicators that the Lodge’s\\ninterests were “directly pitted” against the State’s and City’s.\\n And, more importantly, the Lodge does not identify an\\nunexpected development which would excuse its delay. The\\nmotion for intervention cited the community group recom-\\nmendations as a threat, but those recommendations were\\nnonbinding. The motion also asserted that the injunctive relief\\nrequested in the August 2017 complaint would impair CBA\\nrights. But that argument simply underscores the Lodge’s\\nnine-month delay. In fact, in the subsequent motion to hold\\nproceedings in abeyance, the Lodge pointed to the Depart-\\nment of Justice’s January 2017 report as the reason it believed\\nits rights were at issue. We do not dispute that the Lodge\\ncould have sought intervention by relying on the complaint\\nand report. But the Lodge’s reliance on those documents\\ndemonstrates that the justification for intervention did not ap-\\npreciably change between August 2017 and June 2018.\\n Even the Lodge’s ex post reason for intervention (infor-\\nmation from confidential sources) suffers from this flaw. Re-\\nmember that, until July 2018, the Lodge had not received any\\nconsent decree draft language or been permitted to partici-\\npate directly in settlement negotiations. In May 2018, confi-\\ndential sources allegedly told the Lodge that “there were con-\\nsent decree provisions that would conflict with the provisions\\nof the collective bargaining agreement.” (R. 81-4 at 8–9). But\\nthose sources did not provide copies of those provisions\\n(much less copies of any carve-out language). Based on this\\n\\f12 No. 18-2805\\n\\ninformation, the Lodge determined that the consent decree\\nmight impact its interests. But the Lodge never identifies the\\nspecific information that these sources provided which the\\nLodge could not have previously intuited from the complaint\\nor discussions with the State. For these reasons, the district\\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in determining that the\\nLodge had notice of its interest beginning in August 2017.\\n B. Prejudice to the State and City\\n We next consider “the prejudice caused to the original par-\\nties by the delay.” Grochocinski, 719 F.3d at 797–98. The preju-\\ndice here is manifest. “Once parties have invested time and\\neffort into settling a case it would be prejudicial to allow in-\\ntervention.” Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir.\\n1991). That is particularly true when the settlement negotia-\\ntions were complex and well-publicized, as was the case here.\\nSee id.; see also City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 536. The Lodge\\nargues that the prejudice caused by its delay was minimal be-\\ncause it only waited several weeks from the time it deter-\\nmined its interests were at stake before filing its motion. But\\nif the Lodge’s delay began when the State filed the com-\\nplaint—as the district court properly calculated—then the\\nprejudice becomes significant. The district court did not err in\\ndetermining that intervention would cause prejudice.\\n C. Prejudice to the Lodge\\n The Lodge next argues that the district court erred in find-\\ning that the potential for prejudice to the Lodge was insuffi-\\ncient to mandate intervention. When the district court\\nproperly denies a motion to intervene, the applicants cannot\\n“attack the fairness of [a] consent decree because they are not\\nparties to the agreement.” B.H. by Pierce v. Murphy, 984 F.2d\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 13\\n\\n196, 199 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting City of Chicago, 908 F.2d at\\n200)). But the inability to appeal the entry of a consent decree\\ndoes not always mandate intervention. Rather, when the in-\\nterested party can adequately convey its concerns to the dis-\\ntrict court at the fairness hearing, prejudice is often minimal.\\nSee City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 537 (“Because [the pro-\\nposed intervenor] has already had an opportunity to present\\nits views to the district court, it would suffer little prejudice if\\nit were denied permission to intervene at this late stage in the\\nproceedings.”). The Lodge has enjoyed repeated (and contin-\\nuing) opportunities to do so.\\n The Lodge believes the draft consent decree will impair\\nCBA rights and displace protections provided by Illinois stat-\\nutes. The district court found that there was “some evidence\\nthat parts of the current draft consent decree may conflict with\\nthe CBA, the [Illinois Public Labor Relations Act], or other\\nstate laws.” (R. 88 at 17.) For the purposes of this opinion, we\\nwill assume that certain provisions of the draft consent decree\\nconflict—on their face—with the CBA and Illinois law.\\n Notwithstanding that potential for conflict, the Lodge’s\\nrights are protected. We begin with the carve-out language in-\\ncluded in the decree. That provision expressly confirms that\\n“[n]othing in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as obli-\\ngating the City or the Unions to violate … the terms of the\\nCBAs … with respect to the subject of wages, hours, and terms\\nand conditions of employment unless such terms violate the\\nU.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy.” (R. 81-2 at\\n217.) The Lodge argues that this provision is “wholly different\\nfrom a ‘shall not conflict with’ prohibition for the City and the\\n[State] to impinge upon the CBA.” (Appellant’s Br. at 33.) The\\nlanguage speaks for itself. Read as a whole, ¶ 687 makes clear\\n\\f14 No. 18-2805\\n\\nthat the parties do not intend for the consent decree to be in-\\nterpreted as impairing CBA rights.\\n The Lodge also argues that the exception in ¶ 687, indicat-\\ning that the decree may displace CBA provisions if they “vio-\\nlate the U.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy,” swal-\\nlows the rule. “Public policy” is undefined, and so there is ar-\\nguably ambiguity regarding what triggers that exception.\\n But, as the district court recognized, existing law already\\nprovides protections for the Lodge. “Before entering a con-\\nsent decree the judge must satisfy himself that the decree is\\nconsistent with the Constitution and laws, does not under-\\nmine the rightful interests of third parties, and is an appropri-\\nate commitment of the court’s limited resources.” Kasper v. Bd.\\nof Election Comm’rs of the City of Chicago, 814 F.2d 332, 338 (7th\\nCir. 1987). Similarly, consent decrees “may not alter collective\\nbargaining agreements without the union’s assent.” People\\nWho Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d\\n1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1992). “Neither may litigants agree to dis-\\nregard valid state laws.” Id. In other words, because “[c]on-\\nsent decrees are fundamentally contracts,” the parties to those\\ndecrees “‘may not impose duties or obligations on a third\\nparty, without that party’s agreement.’” Id. (quoting Firefight-\\ners Local 93 v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529 (1986)).\\n The parties negotiate and the district court considers the\\nconsent decree against this background law, which protects\\nthe Lodge even if ¶ 687 contains ambiguities. Simply put, a\\nconsent decree cannot accidentally eliminate the rights of\\nthird parties. And if the parties interpret the consent decree in\\na way which violates CBA rights, the Lodge can avail itself of\\nnormal remedies for CBA violations. See W.R. Grace & Co. v.\\nLocal Union 759, Intʹl Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum &\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 15\\n\\nPlastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 770 (1983) (affirming the\\nenforcement of an arbitration award for violating the CBA,\\neven though a settlement agreement required the company’s\\nviolation).\\n Admittedly, “[c]onsent decrees can alter the state law\\nrights of third parties.” Application of Cty. Collector of Cty. of\\nWinnebago, Ill., 96 F.3d 890, 901 (7th Cir. 1996). But that’s true\\n“only where the change is necessary to remedy a violation of\\nfederal law.” Id. (emphasis added); see also People Who Care,\\n961 F.2d at 1339 (“[B]efore altering the contractual (or state-\\nlaw) entitlements of third parties, the court must find the\\nchange necessary to an appropriate remedy for a legal\\nwrong.”). The district court has made no finding of necessity.\\nTo the contrary, the court emphasized that it “is obligated to\\nuphold the applicable law in resolving any real conflicts be-\\ntween the proposed decree and any existing or future con-\\ntracts.” Illinois v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-6260, 2018 WL\\n3920816, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018). The district court noted\\nthat consent decrees typically cannot subvert CBA rights, but\\nreminded the parties that “a CBA also must comply with fed-\\neral law.” Id. at *9.\\n Thus, the Lodge’s assertion of prejudice is largely specu-\\nlative. As things stand now, the consent decree cannot impair\\nthe CBA or state law rights enjoyed by Chicago police officers.\\nThat will change only if the district court concludes that fed-\\neral law requires the abrogation of those rights. Even then, the\\nabrogation must be narrowly tailored. We decline to speculate\\nwhether federal law will require such a remedy here. On the\\npresent facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in\\nfinding that intervention was unwarranted given the minimal\\nprejudice identified by the Lodge.\\n\\f16 No. 18-2805\\n\\n There is one final matter worth discussing. The district\\ncourt assured the Lodge that, “if the assumptions about the\\nfuture course of this litigation described above should turn\\nout to be radically incorrect, nothing in the rules or the case\\nlaw of which this court is aware would prevent re-examina-\\ntion of the matter of intervention.” City of Chicago, 2018 WL\\n3920816, at *11 n.5 (citing State v. Dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,\\n262 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir. 2001)). That is correct. The Lodge’s\\nallegations of prejudice are presently speculative, and the\\nother factors counsel against intervention. But if the Lodge’s\\nfears are substantiated, the balance of interests will shift.\\n D. Unusual Circumstances\\n We consider a final factor: whether any unusual circum-\\nstances mitigated or aggravated the delay. The district court\\ndid not consider this factor in a separate section. The Lodge\\nargues that the failure to consider all four factors mandates\\nreversal. (Appellant’s Br. at 15 (citing Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S.\\nForest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701 (7th Cir. 2003) (reversing\\nbecause the district court’s analysis of timeliness factors did\\nnot correspond to the four factors and because other aspects\\nof the reasoning were too conclusory for “us to identify the\\nreasoning behind the holdings”))). The Lodge only identifies\\none unusual circumstance here: the “reasonable reliance” ar-\\ngument addressed above. But the Lodge never squarely pre-\\nsented that legal theory to the district court. And the district\\ncourt considered the facts underlying the argument but found\\nthem unpersuasive. See City of Chicago, 2018 WL 3920816, at\\n*5–6. Our precedent merely requires that the district court\\nconsider the appropriate factors and discuss them in detail\\nsufficient for us to review on appeal. See Heartwood, 316 F.3d\\nat 701. When a party fails to specifically identify unusual\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 17\\n\\ncircumstances, the district court does not err in focusing on\\nthe disputed factors.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Lodge knew from the filing of the complaint that the\\nconsent decree might affect its interests. Indeed, the Lodge\\ntacitly admitted this when it relied on allegations in the com-\\nplaint—including reports from 2016 and 2017—in arguing to\\nthe district court that intervention was necessary. And setting\\nthe delay aside, the Lodge’s assertions of prejudice are pres-\\nently unsubstantiated. Existing law provides significant safe-\\nguards for the Lodge’s interests. If those protections prove in-\\nsufficient, then a renewed motion for intervention might be\\nappropriate. But on the facts as they currently stand, the dis-\\ntrict court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Lodge’s\\nmotion untimely.\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the\\nmotion for intervention.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355569/\", \"author_raw\": \"Michael Stephen Kanne\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578316/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: State of Illinois v. City of Chicago\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2805\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n v.\nCITY OF CHICAGO,\n Defendant-Appellee,\nAPPEAL OF:\n FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7,\n Proposed Intervenor.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 17-cv-6260 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. On August 29, 2017, the State of Illi-\nnois filed suit in federal court against the City of Chicago, al-\nleging that the Chicago Police Department’s use-of-force pol-\nicies and practices violate the federal constitution and Illinois\nlaw. Two days later, the parties moved to stay the proceedings\n\f2 No. 18-2805\n\nwhile they negotiated a consent decree. Almost immediately\nafter the State filed the complaint, the Fraternal Order of Po-\nlice, Lodge No. 7, publicly indicated its opposition to any con-\nsent decree, citing fears that the decree might impair its col-\nlective bargaining rights. For months, the Lodge monitored\nthe ongoing negotiations and met informally with the State’s\nrepresentatives. But the Lodge waited until June 6, 2018, to file\na motion to intervene in the suit. The district court denied the\nmotion to intervene as untimely. Because the Lodge knew\nfrom the beginning that a consent decree might impact its in-\nterests but delayed its motion for nearly a year, and because\nits allegations of prejudice are speculative, we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n In April 2016, the Chicago Police Accountability Task\nForce issued a report finding that the Chicago Police Depart-\nment’s “response to violence is not sufficiently imbued with\nConstitutional policing tactics.” (R. 1-1 at 14.) In January 2017,\nthe United States Department of Justice released a report con-\ncluding that the Chicago Police Department exhibits a pattern\nor practice of the unconstitutional use of force. The report\nfound that Chicago’s inadequate accountability mechanisms\nare a significant contributor to the repeated constitutional vi-\nolations. The Department of Justice suggested that effective\nreform was unlikely without “[a] court-ordered, over-arching\nplan … that is overseen by a federal judge.” (Id. at 211.)\n On August 29, 2017, the State of Illinois filed suit against\nthe City of Chicago, alleging that the City’s policing practices\ninvolve the repeated use of excessive force. Two days later,\nthe parties moved to stay proceedings while they engaged in\nconsent decree negotiations. The district court granted that\nmotion.\n\fNo. 18-2805 3\n\n Immediately after the State filed suit, the Lodge publicly\nexpressed its opposition to any consent decree. In a news ar-\nticle published the evening of August 29, 2017, the Lodge’s\npresident, Kevin Graham, described a consent decree as a “a\npotential catastrophe for Chicago.” (R. 73 at 4 & n.1.) Mr. Gra-\nham elaborated on his opposition to a consent decree in the\nLodge’s September 2017 newsletter. He voiced the fear that a\nconsent decree might “seriously threaten our collective bar-\ngaining rights” and assured the Lodge that no one in his ad-\nministration believed that a consent decree was “necessary.”\n(R. 73-1 at 13.)\n Despite these public concerns over the suit’s potential im-\npact on collective bargaining rights, the Lodge did not seek to\nintervene at that time. Instead, during the subsequent months\nof negotiation between the State and City, the Lodge repeat-\nedly met separately with the State. At those meetings, the\nLodge expressed its concern that the inchoate consent decree\nmight conflict with provisions of the Collective Bargaining\nAgreement (“CBA”) or with Illinois statutes which protect po-\nlice officers. The State told the Lodge that it did not intend to\nintrude into matters of police officer discipline or other “core\nmandatory matters.” (R. 81-4 at 6.)\n To that end, and to avoid the need for the Lodge to inter-\nvene, the State and Lodge focused on creating “carve-out”\nlanguage that would ensure the consent decree left CBA\nrights intact. During these informal discussions, which began\nin the fall of 2017 and continued well into the spring of 2018,\nthe State often assured the Lodge that it was working with the\nCity to avoid any impact on CBA rights. The State never pro-\nvided the Lodge with copies of the proposed consent decree\nor with finalized carve-out language. Nevertheless, the State’s\n\f4 No. 18-2805\n\nrepresentative, Gary Caplan, assured the Lodge that the draft\nconsent decree did not conflict with the CBA and that, if any\nconsent decree provisions did conflict, the CBA would con-\ntrol.\n Between March 21, 2018, and May 25, 2018, the district\ncourt met four times with the parties to discuss the consent\ndecree negotiations. On two of those occasions, Lodge repre-\nsentatives appeared at the courtroom and requested permis-\nsion to attend the session. Both times, the City and State re-\nfused to consent to the request.\n On June 6, 2018, the Lodge moved to intervene. The Lodge\nhas offered a variety of explanations for its decision to seek\nintervention. In the motion to intervene, the Lodge attributed\nthe motion to its discovery that, on May 15, 2018, a number of\ncommunity groups “published and undoubtedly submitted\nto the [State] a report that contains recommendations for the\nconsent decree.” (R. 51 at 5.) The Lodge emphasized that the\nCBA “contains provisions addressing a number of the sub-\njects raised in the complaint filed by the Office of the Illinois\nAttorney General in this case.” (Id. at 6.) Because many of the\nrecommendations made by the community groups would re-\nquire “substantive modifications” to practices or activities\ncovered by the CBA, the Lodge believed that intervention was\nnecessary. The Lodge also argued that the complaint—filed\nnine months earlier—sought injunctive relief that would con-\nflict with the CBA. Thus, at the time, the Lodge did not cite its\nexclusion from negotiations as a reason for intervention. Like-\nwise, the Lodge did not move to intervene due to surprise lan-\nguage in the consent decree (because the Lodge had not yet\nreceived a copy of the draft consent decree).\n\fNo. 18-2805 5\n\n In early July 2018, the Lodge filed a motion to hold pro-\nceedings in abeyance while the court considered the motion\nto intervene. In that motion, the Lodge argued that it had\n“reason to believe that the consent decree will impact the col-\nlective bargaining agreement,” but the Lodge based that be-\nlief “on the January 2017 Department of Justice report … and\nthe representations in the [August 31, 2017] motion to stay\nconcerning the failure of the City to administer effective po-\nlice discipline.” (R. 65 at 2.)\n On July 27, 2018, the State and City made the proposed\nconsent decree public. The draft includes numerous provi-\nsions which the Lodge believes conflict with the disciplinary\nand investigative provisions of the CBA. The proposed con-\nsent decree also contains a paragraph addressing conflicts be-\ntween the consent decree and CBAs:\n 687. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to\n (a) alter any of the CBAs between the City and the\n Unions; or (b) impair or conflict with the collective\n bargaining rights of employees in those units under\n the IPLRA. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be\n interpreted as obligating the City or the Unions to\n violate (i) the terms of the CBAs, including any suc-\n cessor CBAs resulting from the negotiation process\n … mandated by the IPLRA with respect to the sub-\n ject of wages, hours and terms and conditions of em-\n ployment unless such terms violate the U.S. Consti-\n tution, Illinois law, or public policy, or (ii) any bar-\n gaining obligations under the IPLRA, and/or waive\n any rights or obligations thereunder. In negotiating\n Successor CBAs … , the City shall use its best efforts\n to secure modifications to the CBAs consistent with\n the terms of this Consent Decree, or to the extent\n\f6 No. 18-2805\n\n necessary to provide for the effective implementa-\n tion of the provisions of this Consent Decree.\n\n(R. 81-2 at 217.)\n On August 8, 2018, the district court directed the State,\nCity, and Lodge to submit supplemental briefs addressing the\nLodge’s contention that the consent decree would adversely\naffect CBA rights. In particular, the district court directed the\nLodge to explain whether ¶ 687 of the draft consent decree\nameliorated its concerns. On August 16, 2018, after receiving\nthe supplemental briefing, the court denied the motion to in-\ntervene as untimely. The Lodge appealed.\n While the Lodge’s appeal has been pending, the district\ncourt’s consideration of the draft consent decree has contin-\nued. The Lodge moved to stay review of the consent decree\nduring the pendency of its appeal, but the district court has\nnot yet ruled on that motion. The district court held the fair-\nness hearing on October 24 and 25, 2018. Prior to that hearing,\nthe district court received hundreds of written comments, in-\ncluding one from the Lodge. Given the level of interest, the\ndistrict court limited participation in the fairness hearing to a\nrandomly selected group of applicants, each of which spoke\nfor five minutes. The record is unclear whether any Lodge\nmembers received an opportunity to speak at the fairness\nhearing. But, in the weeks since the hearing, the Lodge has\nsubmitted numerous supplemental comments from its mem-\nbers.\n II. ANALYSIS\n Because denial of a motion to intervene essentially ends\nthe litigation for the movant, such orders are final and appeal-\nable. Reich v. ABC/York-Estes Corp., 64 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir.\n\fNo. 18-2805 7\n\n1995). The Lodge sought to intervene as of right, meaning the\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) ap-\nply: “(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the sub-\nject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a practi-\ncal matter, of that interest by the disposition of the action; and\n(4) lack of adequate representation of the interest by the exist-\ning parties to the action.” Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 346 (7th\nCir. 1994) (quoting Southmark Corp. v. Cagan, 950 F.2d 416, 418\n(7th Cir. 1991)). “A motion to intervene as a matter of right,\nmoreover, should not be dismissed unless it appears to a cer-\ntainty that the intervenor is not entitled to relief under any set\nof facts which could be proved under the complaint.” Reich,\n64 F.3d at 321 (quoting Lake Investors Dev. Group v. Egidi Dev.\nGroup, 715 F.2d 1256, 1258 (7th Cir. 1983)). “[W]e must accept\nas true the non-conclusory allegations of the motion.” Id. The\ndistrict court found that the Lodge’s motion satisfied the final\nthree requirements but denied the motion to intervene after\nconcluding it was untimely. For that reason, we focus solely\non the timeliness requirement.\n “We look to four factors to determine whether a motion is\ntimely: ‘(1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should\nhave known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused\nto the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the in-\ntervenor if the motion is denied; (4) any other unusual circum-\nstances.’” Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719\nF.3d 785, 797–98 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sokaogon Chippewa\nCmty. v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2000)). When the\ndistrict court denies a motion for intervention as untimely, we\nreview for abuse of discretion. Id.\n\f8 No. 18-2805\n\n A. Knowledge of Interest\n The district court found that the Lodge should have\nknown of its interest in the suit from the time the State filed\nsuit. Because nine months passed before the Lodge sought to\nintervene, the motion was untimely. Now, the Lodge argues\nthat the district court erred because it did not learn its inter-\nests might be impaired until “after the Lodge was shut out of\nsettlement discussions and the Lodge had received infor-\nmation from confidential sources that its contractual rights\nwould be impaired.” (Appellant’s Br. at 24.)\n “A prospective intervenor must move promptly to inter-\nvene as soon as it knows or has reason to know that its inter-\nests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litiga-\ntion.” Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701\n(7th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Sokaogon Chippewa,\n214 F.3d at 949 (“As soon as a prospective intervenor knows\nor has reason to know that his interests might be adversely af-\nfected by the outcome of the litigation he must move\npromptly to intervene.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added);\nReich, 64 F.3d at 321 (“[W]e determine timeliness from the\ntime the potential intervenors learn that their interest might be\nimpaired.”) (emphasis added); City of Bloomington, Ind. v.\nWestinghouse Elec. Corp., 824 F.2d 531, 535 (7th Cir. 1987) (find-\ning a motion to intervene untimely because the movant “had\nknowledge that its interests could be affected more than 11\nmonths prior to the time it sought intervention”). Thus, we\nmeasure from when the applicant has reason to know its in-\nterests might be adversely affected, not from when it knows\nfor certain that they will be.\n The Lodge does not dispute that, immediately after the\nState filed the lawsuit, it publicly opposed any consent decree.\n\fNo. 18-2805 9\n\nIn fact, Lodge President Graham asserted in his September\n2017 newsletter article that a consent decree “could seriously\nthreaten ... collective bargaining rights.” (R. 73-1 at 13.) The\nconclusion that the City, State, and Lodge do not share inter-\nests is hardly remarkable. The Lodge’s very existence is\nrooted in the competing interests between its members and\nthe City. And the complaint emphasized the need for in-\ncreased accountability and other significant reforms which\nwould inevitably impact police officer interests. Thus, the\nLodge waited nine months from the time it became clear that\nthe lawsuit might affect its interests. The Lodge’s delay ren-\nders the motion untimely. See Westinghouse, 824 F.2d at 535\n(“[A]n examination of the initial factor in our analysis, the\nlength of time the prospective intervenor knew or reasonably\nshould have known of its interest before it petitioned to inter-\nvene (11 months), clearly establishes that [the] motion to in-\ntervene was untimely.”).\n The Lodge argues that the timeliness inquiry should in-\nstead run from the time it determined that the State was not\nprotecting its interests. Specifically, the Lodge contends that\nit reasonably relied on the State’s assurances that it was pro-\ntecting the Lodge’s interests.\n The cases the Lodge relies on offer it no aid. In several\nprior cases, we have indicated that intervention may be timely\nwhere the movant promptly seeks intervention upon learning\nthat a party is not representing its interests. See Reich, 64 F.3d\nat 321–22 (reversing denial of the motion to intervene because\nthe movants “reasonably believed their employer was repre-\nsenting their interests and, considering the believed adequacy\nof representation, could not have legitimately petitioned to in-\ntervene”); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminium, 25 F.3d\n\f10 No. 18-2805\n\n1174, 1183 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[W]here a party induces an appli-\ncant to refrain from intervening and there is reasonable reli-\nance, the applicantʹs motion should not fail on timeliness\ngrounds.”); United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1256, 1263\n(7th Cir. 1989) (“[W]hen a federal judicial decree unexpect-\nedly impairs settled expectations, and does so on what might\nappear to be arbitrary and discriminatory grounds, the judge\nis obliged to listen to the victims of the decree when they\nmake prompt application to intervene.”); Sokaogon, 214 F.3d\nat 949 (characterizing City of Chicago as a case “where the\nwhite female police officers who wanted to intervene could\nnot have anticipated that the new procedures would discrim-\ninate against them”).\n These are all cases where the intervenor could not have\nreasonably anticipated that its interests were at issue or un-\nrepresented until immediately prior to the attempted inter-\nvention. But where the intervenor “has known all along that\nits interests are directly pitted against” those of the parties,\nthen the mere fact that the precise outcome of the litigation\nwas unexpected does not restart the timeliness analysis.\nSokaogon, 214 F.3d at 950. Reich, City of Chicago, and Alcan sup-\nport affirmance because the Lodge has not shown that it rea-\nsonably believed that its interests were not at issue or pro-\ntected, much less that those interests were then unexpectedly\nimpaired.\n The Lodge emphasizes that State’s representatives repeat-\nedly assured them that the consent decree would not impact\nCBA rights. But the very fact that the Lodge and State were\ndiscussing the need for “carve-out” language makes clear that\nboth anticipated that the consent decree would address mat-\nters which arguably fell under the purview of the CBA. The\n\fNo. 18-2805 11\n\nState also refused to provide copies of the draft proposals the\nState and City were exchanging. And the State and City ex-\ncluded the Lodge from the settlement conferences with the\ndistrict court, despite the Lodge showing up and asking to be\nadmitted. Thus, there were many indicators that the Lodge’s\ninterests were “directly pitted” against the State’s and City’s.\n And, more importantly, the Lodge does not identify an\nunexpected development which would excuse its delay. The\nmotion for intervention cited the community group recom-\nmendations as a threat, but those recommendations were\nnonbinding. The motion also asserted that the injunctive relief\nrequested in the August 2017 complaint would impair CBA\nrights. But that argument simply underscores the Lodge’s\nnine-month delay. In fact, in the subsequent motion to hold\nproceedings in abeyance, the Lodge pointed to the Depart-\nment of Justice’s January 2017 report as the reason it believed\nits rights were at issue. We do not dispute that the Lodge\ncould have sought intervention by relying on the complaint\nand report. But the Lodge’s reliance on those documents\ndemonstrates that the justification for intervention did not ap-\npreciably change between August 2017 and June 2018.\n Even the Lodge’s ex post reason for intervention (infor-\nmation from confidential sources) suffers from this flaw. Re-\nmember that, until July 2018, the Lodge had not received any\nconsent decree draft language or been permitted to partici-\npate directly in settlement negotiations. In May 2018, confi-\ndential sources allegedly told the Lodge that “there were con-\nsent decree provisions that would conflict with the provisions\nof the collective bargaining agreement.” (R. 81-4 at 8–9). But\nthose sources did not provide copies of those provisions\n(much less copies of any carve-out language). Based on this\n\f12 No. 18-2805\n\ninformation, the Lodge determined that the consent decree\nmight impact its interests. But the Lodge never identifies the\nspecific information that these sources provided which the\nLodge could not have previously intuited from the complaint\nor discussions with the State. For these reasons, the district\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in determining that the\nLodge had notice of its interest beginning in August 2017.\n B. Prejudice to the State and City\n We next consider “the prejudice caused to the original par-\nties by the delay.” Grochocinski, 719 F.3d at 797–98. The preju-\ndice here is manifest. “Once parties have invested time and\neffort into settling a case it would be prejudicial to allow in-\ntervention.” Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir.\n1991). That is particularly true when the settlement negotia-\ntions were complex and well-publicized, as was the case here.\nSee id.; see also City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 536. The Lodge\nargues that the prejudice caused by its delay was minimal be-\ncause it only waited several weeks from the time it deter-\nmined its interests were at stake before filing its motion. But\nif the Lodge’s delay began when the State filed the com-\nplaint—as the district court properly calculated—then the\nprejudice becomes significant. The district court did not err in\ndetermining that intervention would cause prejudice.\n C. Prejudice to the Lodge\n The Lodge next argues that the district court erred in find-\ning that the potential for prejudice to the Lodge was insuffi-\ncient to mandate intervention. When the district court\nproperly denies a motion to intervene, the applicants cannot\n“attack the fairness of [a] consent decree because they are not\nparties to the agreement.” B.H. by Pierce v. Murphy, 984 F.2d\n\fNo. 18-2805 13\n\n196, 199 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting City of Chicago, 908 F.2d at\n200)). But the inability to appeal the entry of a consent decree\ndoes not always mandate intervention. Rather, when the in-\nterested party can adequately convey its concerns to the dis-\ntrict court at the fairness hearing, prejudice is often minimal.\nSee City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 537 (“Because [the pro-\nposed intervenor] has already had an opportunity to present\nits views to the district court, it would suffer little prejudice if\nit were denied permission to intervene at this late stage in the\nproceedings.”). The Lodge has enjoyed repeated (and contin-\nuing) opportunities to do so.\n The Lodge believes the draft consent decree will impair\nCBA rights and displace protections provided by Illinois stat-\nutes. The district court found that there was “some evidence\nthat parts of the current draft consent decree may conflict with\nthe CBA, the [Illinois Public Labor Relations Act], or other\nstate laws.” (R. 88 at 17.) For the purposes of this opinion, we\nwill assume that certain provisions of the draft consent decree\nconflict—on their face—with the CBA and Illinois law.\n Notwithstanding that potential for conflict, the Lodge’s\nrights are protected. We begin with the carve-out language in-\ncluded in the decree. That provision expressly confirms that\n“[n]othing in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as obli-\ngating the City or the Unions to violate … the terms of the\nCBAs … with respect to the subject of wages, hours, and terms\nand conditions of employment unless such terms violate the\nU.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy.” (R. 81-2 at\n217.) The Lodge argues that this provision is “wholly different\nfrom a ‘shall not conflict with’ prohibition for the City and the\n[State] to impinge upon the CBA.” (Appellant’s Br. at 33.) The\nlanguage speaks for itself. Read as a whole, ¶ 687 makes clear\n\f14 No. 18-2805\n\nthat the parties do not intend for the consent decree to be in-\nterpreted as impairing CBA rights.\n The Lodge also argues that the exception in ¶ 687, indicat-\ning that the decree may displace CBA provisions if they “vio-\nlate the U.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy,” swal-\nlows the rule. “Public policy” is undefined, and so there is ar-\nguably ambiguity regarding what triggers that exception.\n But, as the district court recognized, existing law already\nprovides protections for the Lodge. “Before entering a con-\nsent decree the judge must satisfy himself that the decree is\nconsistent with the Constitution and laws, does not under-\nmine the rightful interests of third parties, and is an appropri-\nate commitment of the court’s limited resources.” Kasper v. Bd.\nof Election Comm’rs of the City of Chicago, 814 F.2d 332, 338 (7th\nCir. 1987). Similarly, consent decrees “may not alter collective\nbargaining agreements without the union’s assent.” People\nWho Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d\n1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1992). “Neither may litigants agree to dis-\nregard valid state laws.” Id. In other words, because “[c]on-\nsent decrees are fundamentally contracts,” the parties to those\ndecrees “‘may not impose duties or obligations on a third\nparty, without that party’s agreement.’” Id. (quoting Firefight-\ners Local 93 v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529 (1986)).\n The parties negotiate and the district court considers the\nconsent decree against this background law, which protects\nthe Lodge even if ¶ 687 contains ambiguities. Simply put, a\nconsent decree cannot accidentally eliminate the rights of\nthird parties. And if the parties interpret the consent decree in\na way which violates CBA rights, the Lodge can avail itself of\nnormal remedies for CBA violations. See W.R. Grace & Co. v.\nLocal Union 759, Intʹl Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum &\n\fNo. 18-2805 15\n\nPlastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 770 (1983) (affirming the\nenforcement of an arbitration award for violating the CBA,\neven though a settlement agreement required the company’s\nviolation).\n Admittedly, “[c]onsent decrees can alter the state law\nrights of third parties.” Application of Cty. Collector of Cty. of\nWinnebago, Ill., 96 F.3d 890, 901 (7th Cir. 1996). But that’s true\n“only where the change is necessary to remedy a violation of\nfederal law.” Id. (emphasis added); see also People Who Care,\n961 F.2d at 1339 (“[B]efore altering the contractual (or state-\nlaw) entitlements of third parties, the court must find the\nchange necessary to an appropriate remedy for a legal\nwrong.”). The district court has made no finding of necessity.\nTo the contrary, the court emphasized that it “is obligated to\nuphold the applicable law in resolving any real conflicts be-\ntween the proposed decree and any existing or future con-\ntracts.” Illinois v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-6260, 2018 WL\n3920816, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018). The district court noted\nthat consent decrees typically cannot subvert CBA rights, but\nreminded the parties that “a CBA also must comply with fed-\neral law.” Id. at *9.\n Thus, the Lodge’s assertion of prejudice is largely specu-\nlative. As things stand now, the consent decree cannot impair\nthe CBA or state law rights enjoyed by Chicago police officers.\nThat will change only if the district court concludes that fed-\neral law requires the abrogation of those rights. Even then, the\nabrogation must be narrowly tailored. We decline to speculate\nwhether federal law will require such a remedy here. On the\npresent facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in\nfinding that intervention was unwarranted given the minimal\nprejudice identified by the Lodge.\n\f16 No. 18-2805\n\n There is one final matter worth discussing. The district\ncourt assured the Lodge that, “if the assumptions about the\nfuture course of this litigation described above should turn\nout to be radically incorrect, nothing in the rules or the case\nlaw of which this court is aware would prevent re-examina-\ntion of the matter of intervention.” City of Chicago, 2018 WL\n3920816, at *11 n.5 (citing State v. Dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,\n262 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir. 2001)). That is correct. The Lodge’s\nallegations of prejudice are presently speculative, and the\nother factors counsel against intervention. But if the Lodge’s\nfears are substantiated, the balance of interests will shift.\n D. Unusual Circumstances\n We consider a final factor: whether any unusual circum-\nstances mitigated or aggravated the delay. The district court\ndid not consider this factor in a separate section. The Lodge\nargues that the failure to consider all four factors mandates\nreversal. (Appellant’s Br. at 15 (citing Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S.\nForest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701 (7th Cir. 2003) (reversing\nbecause the district court’s analysis of timeliness factors did\nnot correspond to the four factors and because other aspects\nof the reasoning were too conclusory for “us to identify the\nreasoning behind the holdings”))). The Lodge only identifies\none unusual circumstance here: the “reasonable reliance” ar-\ngument addressed above. But the Lodge never squarely pre-\nsented that legal theory to the district court. And the district\ncourt considered the facts underlying the argument but found\nthem unpersuasive. See City of Chicago, 2018 WL 3920816, at\n*5–6. Our precedent merely requires that the district court\nconsider the appropriate factors and discuss them in detail\nsufficient for us to review on appeal. See Heartwood, 316 F.3d\nat 701. When a party fails to specifically identify unusual\n\fNo. 18-2805 17\n\ncircumstances, the district court does not err in focusing on\nthe disputed factors.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The Lodge knew from the filing of the complaint that the\nconsent decree might affect its interests. Indeed, the Lodge\ntacitly admitted this when it relied on allegations in the com-\nplaint—including reports from 2016 and 2017—in arguing to\nthe district court that intervention was necessary. And setting\nthe delay aside, the Lodge’s assertions of prejudice are pres-\nently unsubstantiated. Existing law provides significant safe-\nguards for the Lodge’s interests. If those protections prove in-\nsufficient, then a renewed motion for intervention might be\nappropriate. But on the facts as they currently stand, the dis-\ntrict court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Lodge’s\nmotion untimely.\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the\nmotion for intervention.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: State of Illinois v. City of Chicago\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-2805\\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n v.\\nCITY OF CHICAGO,\\n Defendant-Appellee,\\nAPPEAL OF:\\n FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7,\\n Proposed Intervenor.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 17-cv-6260 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 2, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n KANNE, Circuit Judge. On August 29, 2017, the State of Illi-\\nnois filed suit in federal court against the City of Chicago, al-\\nleging that the Chicago Police Department’s use-of-force pol-\\nicies and practices violate the federal constitution and Illinois\\nlaw. Two days later, the parties moved to stay the proceedings\\n\\f2 No. 18-2805\\n\\nwhile they negotiated a consent decree. Almost immediately\\nafter the State filed the complaint, the Fraternal Order of Po-\\nlice, Lodge No. 7, publicly indicated its opposition to any con-\\nsent decree, citing fears that the decree might impair its col-\\nlective bargaining rights. For months, the Lodge monitored\\nthe ongoing negotiations and met informally with the State’s\\nrepresentatives. But the Lodge waited until June 6, 2018, to file\\na motion to intervene in the suit. The district court denied the\\nmotion to intervene as untimely. Because the Lodge knew\\nfrom the beginning that a consent decree might impact its in-\\nterests but delayed its motion for nearly a year, and because\\nits allegations of prejudice are speculative, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n In April 2016, the Chicago Police Accountability Task\\nForce issued a report finding that the Chicago Police Depart-\\nment’s “response to violence is not sufficiently imbued with\\nConstitutional policing tactics.” (R. 1-1 at 14.) In January 2017,\\nthe United States Department of Justice released a report con-\\ncluding that the Chicago Police Department exhibits a pattern\\nor practice of the unconstitutional use of force. The report\\nfound that Chicago’s inadequate accountability mechanisms\\nare a significant contributor to the repeated constitutional vi-\\nolations. The Department of Justice suggested that effective\\nreform was unlikely without “[a] court-ordered, over-arching\\nplan … that is overseen by a federal judge.” (Id. at 211.)\\n On August 29, 2017, the State of Illinois filed suit against\\nthe City of Chicago, alleging that the City’s policing practices\\ninvolve the repeated use of excessive force. Two days later,\\nthe parties moved to stay proceedings while they engaged in\\nconsent decree negotiations. The district court granted that\\nmotion.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 3\\n\\n Immediately after the State filed suit, the Lodge publicly\\nexpressed its opposition to any consent decree. In a news ar-\\nticle published the evening of August 29, 2017, the Lodge’s\\npresident, Kevin Graham, described a consent decree as a “a\\npotential catastrophe for Chicago.” (R. 73 at 4 & n.1.) Mr. Gra-\\nham elaborated on his opposition to a consent decree in the\\nLodge’s September 2017 newsletter. He voiced the fear that a\\nconsent decree might “seriously threaten our collective bar-\\ngaining rights” and assured the Lodge that no one in his ad-\\nministration believed that a consent decree was “necessary.”\\n(R. 73-1 at 13.)\\n Despite these public concerns over the suit’s potential im-\\npact on collective bargaining rights, the Lodge did not seek to\\nintervene at that time. Instead, during the subsequent months\\nof negotiation between the State and City, the Lodge repeat-\\nedly met separately with the State. At those meetings, the\\nLodge expressed its concern that the inchoate consent decree\\nmight conflict with provisions of the Collective Bargaining\\nAgreement (“CBA”) or with Illinois statutes which protect po-\\nlice officers. The State told the Lodge that it did not intend to\\nintrude into matters of police officer discipline or other “core\\nmandatory matters.” (R. 81-4 at 6.)\\n To that end, and to avoid the need for the Lodge to inter-\\nvene, the State and Lodge focused on creating “carve-out”\\nlanguage that would ensure the consent decree left CBA\\nrights intact. During these informal discussions, which began\\nin the fall of 2017 and continued well into the spring of 2018,\\nthe State often assured the Lodge that it was working with the\\nCity to avoid any impact on CBA rights. The State never pro-\\nvided the Lodge with copies of the proposed consent decree\\nor with finalized carve-out language. Nevertheless, the State’s\\n\\f4 No. 18-2805\\n\\nrepresentative, Gary Caplan, assured the Lodge that the draft\\nconsent decree did not conflict with the CBA and that, if any\\nconsent decree provisions did conflict, the CBA would con-\\ntrol.\\n Between March 21, 2018, and May 25, 2018, the district\\ncourt met four times with the parties to discuss the consent\\ndecree negotiations. On two of those occasions, Lodge repre-\\nsentatives appeared at the courtroom and requested permis-\\nsion to attend the session. Both times, the City and State re-\\nfused to consent to the request.\\n On June 6, 2018, the Lodge moved to intervene. The Lodge\\nhas offered a variety of explanations for its decision to seek\\nintervention. In the motion to intervene, the Lodge attributed\\nthe motion to its discovery that, on May 15, 2018, a number of\\ncommunity groups “published and undoubtedly submitted\\nto the [State] a report that contains recommendations for the\\nconsent decree.” (R. 51 at 5.) The Lodge emphasized that the\\nCBA “contains provisions addressing a number of the sub-\\njects raised in the complaint filed by the Office of the Illinois\\nAttorney General in this case.” (Id. at 6.) Because many of the\\nrecommendations made by the community groups would re-\\nquire “substantive modifications” to practices or activities\\ncovered by the CBA, the Lodge believed that intervention was\\nnecessary. The Lodge also argued that the complaint—filed\\nnine months earlier—sought injunctive relief that would con-\\nflict with the CBA. Thus, at the time, the Lodge did not cite its\\nexclusion from negotiations as a reason for intervention. Like-\\nwise, the Lodge did not move to intervene due to surprise lan-\\nguage in the consent decree (because the Lodge had not yet\\nreceived a copy of the draft consent decree).\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 5\\n\\n In early July 2018, the Lodge filed a motion to hold pro-\\nceedings in abeyance while the court considered the motion\\nto intervene. In that motion, the Lodge argued that it had\\n“reason to believe that the consent decree will impact the col-\\nlective bargaining agreement,” but the Lodge based that be-\\nlief “on the January 2017 Department of Justice report … and\\nthe representations in the [August 31, 2017] motion to stay\\nconcerning the failure of the City to administer effective po-\\nlice discipline.” (R. 65 at 2.)\\n On July 27, 2018, the State and City made the proposed\\nconsent decree public. The draft includes numerous provi-\\nsions which the Lodge believes conflict with the disciplinary\\nand investigative provisions of the CBA. The proposed con-\\nsent decree also contains a paragraph addressing conflicts be-\\ntween the consent decree and CBAs:\\n 687. Nothing in this Consent Decree is intended to\\n (a) alter any of the CBAs between the City and the\\n Unions; or (b) impair or conflict with the collective\\n bargaining rights of employees in those units under\\n the IPLRA. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be\\n interpreted as obligating the City or the Unions to\\n violate (i) the terms of the CBAs, including any suc-\\n cessor CBAs resulting from the negotiation process\\n … mandated by the IPLRA with respect to the sub-\\n ject of wages, hours and terms and conditions of em-\\n ployment unless such terms violate the U.S. Consti-\\n tution, Illinois law, or public policy, or (ii) any bar-\\n gaining obligations under the IPLRA, and/or waive\\n any rights or obligations thereunder. In negotiating\\n Successor CBAs … , the City shall use its best efforts\\n to secure modifications to the CBAs consistent with\\n the terms of this Consent Decree, or to the extent\\n\\f6 No. 18-2805\\n\\n necessary to provide for the effective implementa-\\n tion of the provisions of this Consent Decree.\\n\\n(R. 81-2 at 217.)\\n On August 8, 2018, the district court directed the State,\\nCity, and Lodge to submit supplemental briefs addressing the\\nLodge’s contention that the consent decree would adversely\\naffect CBA rights. In particular, the district court directed the\\nLodge to explain whether ¶ 687 of the draft consent decree\\nameliorated its concerns. On August 16, 2018, after receiving\\nthe supplemental briefing, the court denied the motion to in-\\ntervene as untimely. The Lodge appealed.\\n While the Lodge’s appeal has been pending, the district\\ncourt’s consideration of the draft consent decree has contin-\\nued. The Lodge moved to stay review of the consent decree\\nduring the pendency of its appeal, but the district court has\\nnot yet ruled on that motion. The district court held the fair-\\nness hearing on October 24 and 25, 2018. Prior to that hearing,\\nthe district court received hundreds of written comments, in-\\ncluding one from the Lodge. Given the level of interest, the\\ndistrict court limited participation in the fairness hearing to a\\nrandomly selected group of applicants, each of which spoke\\nfor five minutes. The record is unclear whether any Lodge\\nmembers received an opportunity to speak at the fairness\\nhearing. But, in the weeks since the hearing, the Lodge has\\nsubmitted numerous supplemental comments from its mem-\\nbers.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n Because denial of a motion to intervene essentially ends\\nthe litigation for the movant, such orders are final and appeal-\\nable. Reich v. ABC/York-Estes Corp., 64 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 7\\n\\n1995). The Lodge sought to intervene as of right, meaning the\\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) ap-\\nply: “(1) timely application; (2) an interest relating to the sub-\\nject matter of the action; (3) potential impairment, as a practi-\\ncal matter, of that interest by the disposition of the action; and\\n(4) lack of adequate representation of the interest by the exist-\\ning parties to the action.” Shea v. Angulo, 19 F.3d 343, 346 (7th\\nCir. 1994) (quoting Southmark Corp. v. Cagan, 950 F.2d 416, 418\\n(7th Cir. 1991)). “A motion to intervene as a matter of right,\\nmoreover, should not be dismissed unless it appears to a cer-\\ntainty that the intervenor is not entitled to relief under any set\\nof facts which could be proved under the complaint.” Reich,\\n64 F.3d at 321 (quoting Lake Investors Dev. Group v. Egidi Dev.\\nGroup, 715 F.2d 1256, 1258 (7th Cir. 1983)). “[W]e must accept\\nas true the non-conclusory allegations of the motion.” Id. The\\ndistrict court found that the Lodge’s motion satisfied the final\\nthree requirements but denied the motion to intervene after\\nconcluding it was untimely. For that reason, we focus solely\\non the timeliness requirement.\\n “We look to four factors to determine whether a motion is\\ntimely: ‘(1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should\\nhave known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused\\nto the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the in-\\ntervenor if the motion is denied; (4) any other unusual circum-\\nstances.’” Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719\\nF.3d 785, 797–98 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sokaogon Chippewa\\nCmty. v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2000)). When the\\ndistrict court denies a motion for intervention as untimely, we\\nreview for abuse of discretion. Id.\\n\\f8 No. 18-2805\\n\\n A. Knowledge of Interest\\n The district court found that the Lodge should have\\nknown of its interest in the suit from the time the State filed\\nsuit. Because nine months passed before the Lodge sought to\\nintervene, the motion was untimely. Now, the Lodge argues\\nthat the district court erred because it did not learn its inter-\\nests might be impaired until “after the Lodge was shut out of\\nsettlement discussions and the Lodge had received infor-\\nmation from confidential sources that its contractual rights\\nwould be impaired.” (Appellant’s Br. at 24.)\\n “A prospective intervenor must move promptly to inter-\\nvene as soon as it knows or has reason to know that its inter-\\nests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litiga-\\ntion.” Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701\\n(7th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Sokaogon Chippewa,\\n214 F.3d at 949 (“As soon as a prospective intervenor knows\\nor has reason to know that his interests might be adversely af-\\nfected by the outcome of the litigation he must move\\npromptly to intervene.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added);\\nReich, 64 F.3d at 321 (“[W]e determine timeliness from the\\ntime the potential intervenors learn that their interest might be\\nimpaired.”) (emphasis added); City of Bloomington, Ind. v.\\nWestinghouse Elec. Corp., 824 F.2d 531, 535 (7th Cir. 1987) (find-\\ning a motion to intervene untimely because the movant “had\\nknowledge that its interests could be affected more than 11\\nmonths prior to the time it sought intervention”). Thus, we\\nmeasure from when the applicant has reason to know its in-\\nterests might be adversely affected, not from when it knows\\nfor certain that they will be.\\n The Lodge does not dispute that, immediately after the\\nState filed the lawsuit, it publicly opposed any consent decree.\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 9\\n\\nIn fact, Lodge President Graham asserted in his September\\n2017 newsletter article that a consent decree “could seriously\\nthreaten ... collective bargaining rights.” (R. 73-1 at 13.) The\\nconclusion that the City, State, and Lodge do not share inter-\\nests is hardly remarkable. The Lodge’s very existence is\\nrooted in the competing interests between its members and\\nthe City. And the complaint emphasized the need for in-\\ncreased accountability and other significant reforms which\\nwould inevitably impact police officer interests. Thus, the\\nLodge waited nine months from the time it became clear that\\nthe lawsuit might affect its interests. The Lodge’s delay ren-\\nders the motion untimely. See Westinghouse, 824 F.2d at 535\\n(“[A]n examination of the initial factor in our analysis, the\\nlength of time the prospective intervenor knew or reasonably\\nshould have known of its interest before it petitioned to inter-\\nvene (11 months), clearly establishes that [the] motion to in-\\ntervene was untimely.”).\\n The Lodge argues that the timeliness inquiry should in-\\nstead run from the time it determined that the State was not\\nprotecting its interests. Specifically, the Lodge contends that\\nit reasonably relied on the State’s assurances that it was pro-\\ntecting the Lodge’s interests.\\n The cases the Lodge relies on offer it no aid. In several\\nprior cases, we have indicated that intervention may be timely\\nwhere the movant promptly seeks intervention upon learning\\nthat a party is not representing its interests. See Reich, 64 F.3d\\nat 321–22 (reversing denial of the motion to intervene because\\nthe movants “reasonably believed their employer was repre-\\nsenting their interests and, considering the believed adequacy\\nof representation, could not have legitimately petitioned to in-\\ntervene”); see also United States v. Alcan Aluminium, 25 F.3d\\n\\f10 No. 18-2805\\n\\n1174, 1183 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[W]here a party induces an appli-\\ncant to refrain from intervening and there is reasonable reli-\\nance, the applicantʹs motion should not fail on timeliness\\ngrounds.”); United States v. City of Chicago, 870 F.2d 1256, 1263\\n(7th Cir. 1989) (“[W]hen a federal judicial decree unexpect-\\nedly impairs settled expectations, and does so on what might\\nappear to be arbitrary and discriminatory grounds, the judge\\nis obliged to listen to the victims of the decree when they\\nmake prompt application to intervene.”); Sokaogon, 214 F.3d\\nat 949 (characterizing City of Chicago as a case “where the\\nwhite female police officers who wanted to intervene could\\nnot have anticipated that the new procedures would discrim-\\ninate against them”).\\n These are all cases where the intervenor could not have\\nreasonably anticipated that its interests were at issue or un-\\nrepresented until immediately prior to the attempted inter-\\nvention. But where the intervenor “has known all along that\\nits interests are directly pitted against” those of the parties,\\nthen the mere fact that the precise outcome of the litigation\\nwas unexpected does not restart the timeliness analysis.\\nSokaogon, 214 F.3d at 950. Reich, City of Chicago, and Alcan sup-\\nport affirmance because the Lodge has not shown that it rea-\\nsonably believed that its interests were not at issue or pro-\\ntected, much less that those interests were then unexpectedly\\nimpaired.\\n The Lodge emphasizes that State’s representatives repeat-\\nedly assured them that the consent decree would not impact\\nCBA rights. But the very fact that the Lodge and State were\\ndiscussing the need for “carve-out” language makes clear that\\nboth anticipated that the consent decree would address mat-\\nters which arguably fell under the purview of the CBA. The\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 11\\n\\nState also refused to provide copies of the draft proposals the\\nState and City were exchanging. And the State and City ex-\\ncluded the Lodge from the settlement conferences with the\\ndistrict court, despite the Lodge showing up and asking to be\\nadmitted. Thus, there were many indicators that the Lodge’s\\ninterests were “directly pitted” against the State’s and City’s.\\n And, more importantly, the Lodge does not identify an\\nunexpected development which would excuse its delay. The\\nmotion for intervention cited the community group recom-\\nmendations as a threat, but those recommendations were\\nnonbinding. The motion also asserted that the injunctive relief\\nrequested in the August 2017 complaint would impair CBA\\nrights. But that argument simply underscores the Lodge’s\\nnine-month delay. In fact, in the subsequent motion to hold\\nproceedings in abeyance, the Lodge pointed to the Depart-\\nment of Justice’s January 2017 report as the reason it believed\\nits rights were at issue. We do not dispute that the Lodge\\ncould have sought intervention by relying on the complaint\\nand report. But the Lodge’s reliance on those documents\\ndemonstrates that the justification for intervention did not ap-\\npreciably change between August 2017 and June 2018.\\n Even the Lodge’s ex post reason for intervention (infor-\\nmation from confidential sources) suffers from this flaw. Re-\\nmember that, until July 2018, the Lodge had not received any\\nconsent decree draft language or been permitted to partici-\\npate directly in settlement negotiations. In May 2018, confi-\\ndential sources allegedly told the Lodge that “there were con-\\nsent decree provisions that would conflict with the provisions\\nof the collective bargaining agreement.” (R. 81-4 at 8–9). But\\nthose sources did not provide copies of those provisions\\n(much less copies of any carve-out language). Based on this\\n\\f12 No. 18-2805\\n\\ninformation, the Lodge determined that the consent decree\\nmight impact its interests. But the Lodge never identifies the\\nspecific information that these sources provided which the\\nLodge could not have previously intuited from the complaint\\nor discussions with the State. For these reasons, the district\\ncourt did not abuse its discretion in determining that the\\nLodge had notice of its interest beginning in August 2017.\\n B. Prejudice to the State and City\\n We next consider “the prejudice caused to the original par-\\nties by the delay.” Grochocinski, 719 F.3d at 797–98. The preju-\\ndice here is manifest. “Once parties have invested time and\\neffort into settling a case it would be prejudicial to allow in-\\ntervention.” Ragsdale v. Turnock, 941 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir.\\n1991). That is particularly true when the settlement negotia-\\ntions were complex and well-publicized, as was the case here.\\nSee id.; see also City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 536. The Lodge\\nargues that the prejudice caused by its delay was minimal be-\\ncause it only waited several weeks from the time it deter-\\nmined its interests were at stake before filing its motion. But\\nif the Lodge’s delay began when the State filed the com-\\nplaint—as the district court properly calculated—then the\\nprejudice becomes significant. The district court did not err in\\ndetermining that intervention would cause prejudice.\\n C. Prejudice to the Lodge\\n The Lodge next argues that the district court erred in find-\\ning that the potential for prejudice to the Lodge was insuffi-\\ncient to mandate intervention. When the district court\\nproperly denies a motion to intervene, the applicants cannot\\n“attack the fairness of [a] consent decree because they are not\\nparties to the agreement.” B.H. by Pierce v. Murphy, 984 F.2d\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 13\\n\\n196, 199 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting City of Chicago, 908 F.2d at\\n200)). But the inability to appeal the entry of a consent decree\\ndoes not always mandate intervention. Rather, when the in-\\nterested party can adequately convey its concerns to the dis-\\ntrict court at the fairness hearing, prejudice is often minimal.\\nSee City of Bloomington, 824 F.2d at 537 (“Because [the pro-\\nposed intervenor] has already had an opportunity to present\\nits views to the district court, it would suffer little prejudice if\\nit were denied permission to intervene at this late stage in the\\nproceedings.”). The Lodge has enjoyed repeated (and contin-\\nuing) opportunities to do so.\\n The Lodge believes the draft consent decree will impair\\nCBA rights and displace protections provided by Illinois stat-\\nutes. The district court found that there was “some evidence\\nthat parts of the current draft consent decree may conflict with\\nthe CBA, the [Illinois Public Labor Relations Act], or other\\nstate laws.” (R. 88 at 17.) For the purposes of this opinion, we\\nwill assume that certain provisions of the draft consent decree\\nconflict—on their face—with the CBA and Illinois law.\\n Notwithstanding that potential for conflict, the Lodge’s\\nrights are protected. We begin with the carve-out language in-\\ncluded in the decree. That provision expressly confirms that\\n“[n]othing in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted as obli-\\ngating the City or the Unions to violate … the terms of the\\nCBAs … with respect to the subject of wages, hours, and terms\\nand conditions of employment unless such terms violate the\\nU.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy.” (R. 81-2 at\\n217.) The Lodge argues that this provision is “wholly different\\nfrom a ‘shall not conflict with’ prohibition for the City and the\\n[State] to impinge upon the CBA.” (Appellant’s Br. at 33.) The\\nlanguage speaks for itself. Read as a whole, ¶ 687 makes clear\\n\\f14 No. 18-2805\\n\\nthat the parties do not intend for the consent decree to be in-\\nterpreted as impairing CBA rights.\\n The Lodge also argues that the exception in ¶ 687, indicat-\\ning that the decree may displace CBA provisions if they “vio-\\nlate the U.S. Constitution, Illinois law or public policy,” swal-\\nlows the rule. “Public policy” is undefined, and so there is ar-\\nguably ambiguity regarding what triggers that exception.\\n But, as the district court recognized, existing law already\\nprovides protections for the Lodge. “Before entering a con-\\nsent decree the judge must satisfy himself that the decree is\\nconsistent with the Constitution and laws, does not under-\\nmine the rightful interests of third parties, and is an appropri-\\nate commitment of the court’s limited resources.” Kasper v. Bd.\\nof Election Comm’rs of the City of Chicago, 814 F.2d 332, 338 (7th\\nCir. 1987). Similarly, consent decrees “may not alter collective\\nbargaining agreements without the union’s assent.” People\\nWho Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Sch. Dist. No. 205, 961 F.2d\\n1335, 1337 (7th Cir. 1992). “Neither may litigants agree to dis-\\nregard valid state laws.” Id. In other words, because “[c]on-\\nsent decrees are fundamentally contracts,” the parties to those\\ndecrees “‘may not impose duties or obligations on a third\\nparty, without that party’s agreement.’” Id. (quoting Firefight-\\ners Local 93 v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 529 (1986)).\\n The parties negotiate and the district court considers the\\nconsent decree against this background law, which protects\\nthe Lodge even if ¶ 687 contains ambiguities. Simply put, a\\nconsent decree cannot accidentally eliminate the rights of\\nthird parties. And if the parties interpret the consent decree in\\na way which violates CBA rights, the Lodge can avail itself of\\nnormal remedies for CBA violations. See W.R. Grace & Co. v.\\nLocal Union 759, Intʹl Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum &\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 15\\n\\nPlastic Workers of Am., 461 U.S. 757, 770 (1983) (affirming the\\nenforcement of an arbitration award for violating the CBA,\\neven though a settlement agreement required the company’s\\nviolation).\\n Admittedly, “[c]onsent decrees can alter the state law\\nrights of third parties.” Application of Cty. Collector of Cty. of\\nWinnebago, Ill., 96 F.3d 890, 901 (7th Cir. 1996). But that’s true\\n“only where the change is necessary to remedy a violation of\\nfederal law.” Id. (emphasis added); see also People Who Care,\\n961 F.2d at 1339 (“[B]efore altering the contractual (or state-\\nlaw) entitlements of third parties, the court must find the\\nchange necessary to an appropriate remedy for a legal\\nwrong.”). The district court has made no finding of necessity.\\nTo the contrary, the court emphasized that it “is obligated to\\nuphold the applicable law in resolving any real conflicts be-\\ntween the proposed decree and any existing or future con-\\ntracts.” Illinois v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-6260, 2018 WL\\n3920816, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2018). The district court noted\\nthat consent decrees typically cannot subvert CBA rights, but\\nreminded the parties that “a CBA also must comply with fed-\\neral law.” Id. at *9.\\n Thus, the Lodge’s assertion of prejudice is largely specu-\\nlative. As things stand now, the consent decree cannot impair\\nthe CBA or state law rights enjoyed by Chicago police officers.\\nThat will change only if the district court concludes that fed-\\neral law requires the abrogation of those rights. Even then, the\\nabrogation must be narrowly tailored. We decline to speculate\\nwhether federal law will require such a remedy here. On the\\npresent facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in\\nfinding that intervention was unwarranted given the minimal\\nprejudice identified by the Lodge.\\n\\f16 No. 18-2805\\n\\n There is one final matter worth discussing. The district\\ncourt assured the Lodge that, “if the assumptions about the\\nfuture course of this litigation described above should turn\\nout to be radically incorrect, nothing in the rules or the case\\nlaw of which this court is aware would prevent re-examina-\\ntion of the matter of intervention.” City of Chicago, 2018 WL\\n3920816, at *11 n.5 (citing State v. Dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,\\n262 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir. 2001)). That is correct. The Lodge’s\\nallegations of prejudice are presently speculative, and the\\nother factors counsel against intervention. But if the Lodge’s\\nfears are substantiated, the balance of interests will shift.\\n D. Unusual Circumstances\\n We consider a final factor: whether any unusual circum-\\nstances mitigated or aggravated the delay. The district court\\ndid not consider this factor in a separate section. The Lodge\\nargues that the failure to consider all four factors mandates\\nreversal. (Appellant’s Br. at 15 (citing Heartwood, Inc. v. U.S.\\nForest Serv., Inc., 316 F.3d 694, 701 (7th Cir. 2003) (reversing\\nbecause the district court’s analysis of timeliness factors did\\nnot correspond to the four factors and because other aspects\\nof the reasoning were too conclusory for “us to identify the\\nreasoning behind the holdings”))). The Lodge only identifies\\none unusual circumstance here: the “reasonable reliance” ar-\\ngument addressed above. But the Lodge never squarely pre-\\nsented that legal theory to the district court. And the district\\ncourt considered the facts underlying the argument but found\\nthem unpersuasive. See City of Chicago, 2018 WL 3920816, at\\n*5–6. Our precedent merely requires that the district court\\nconsider the appropriate factors and discuss them in detail\\nsufficient for us to review on appeal. See Heartwood, 316 F.3d\\nat 701. When a party fails to specifically identify unusual\\n\\fNo. 18-2805 17\\n\\ncircumstances, the district court does not err in focusing on\\nthe disputed factors.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The Lodge knew from the filing of the complaint that the\\nconsent decree might affect its interests. Indeed, the Lodge\\ntacitly admitted this when it relied on allegations in the com-\\nplaint—including reports from 2016 and 2017—in arguing to\\nthe district court that intervention was necessary. And setting\\nthe delay aside, the Lodge’s assertions of prejudice are pres-\\nently unsubstantiated. Existing law provides significant safe-\\nguards for the Lodge’s interests. If those protections prove in-\\nsufficient, then a renewed motion for intervention might be\\nappropriate. But on the facts as they currently stand, the dis-\\ntrict court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Lodge’s\\nmotion untimely.\\n Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the\\nmotion for intervention.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":168,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578319,"string":"4,578,319"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1799"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1799\\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\\n Petitioner,\\n v.\\n\\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\\n Respondent.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\\n No. A089-856-143\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\\n\\f2 No. 18-1799\\n\\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\\n1, 7 (2004).\\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\\nedent says otherwise.\\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\\n\\fNo. 18-1799 3\\n\\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\\none’s health or ability to walk.\\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\\n\\f4 No. 18-1799\\n\\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\\nwe need not decide the issue.\\n The petition for review is DENIED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355572/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578319/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1799\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\n Petitioner,\n v.\n\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\n Respondent.\n ____________________\n\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\n No. A089-856-143\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\n\f2 No. 18-1799\n\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\n1, 7 (2004).\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\nedent says otherwise.\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\n\fNo. 18-1799 3\n\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\none’s health or ability to walk.\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\n\f4 No. 18-1799\n\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\nwe need not decide the issue.\n The petition for review is DENIED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1799\\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\\n Petitioner,\\n v.\\n\\nMATTHEW G. WHITAKER,\\nActing Attorney General of the United States,\\n Respondent.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Petition for Review of an Order of the\\n Board of Immigration Appeals.\\n No. A089-856-143\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar, a native and\\ncitizen of Mexico, applied for cancellation of removal from the\\nUnited States. An immigration judge denied his application,\\nand the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial on\\nthe ground that Beltran-Aguilar’s conviction for Wisconsin\\nbattery involving domestic abuse was a crime of domestic vi-\\nolence. Beltran-Aguilar now petitions this court for review,\\n\\f2 No. 18-1799\\n\\narguing that the Wisconsin offense is not categorically a crime\\nof violence. It is, so we deny his petition.\\n Federal law makes an alien ineligible for cancellation of\\nremoval if he has been convicted of a crime of domestic vio-\\nlence, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), which is “any crime of vi-\\nolence … against a person committed by” a current or former\\ndomestic partner, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). A “crime of vio-\\nlence” is “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted\\nuse, or threatened use of physical force against the person or\\nproperty of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Offenses either cate-\\ngorically involve physical force or they don’t; the elements of\\nthe crime for which a defendant was convicted, not his under-\\nlying conduct, are what matters. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S.\\n1, 7 (2004).\\n Beltran-Aguilar was convicted of battery under Wisconsin\\nStatute 940.19(1), which prohibits “caus[ing] bodily harm to\\nanother by an act done with intent to cause bodily harm to\\nthat person or another without the consent of the person so\\nharmed.” In Wisconsin, “bodily harm” means “physical pain\\nor injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.”\\nWis. Stat. § 939.22(4). Beltran-Aguilar argues that Wisconsin\\nbattery is not a crime of violence because it can be satisfied by\\ncausing only illness or impairment of physical condition,\\nwhich he says do not necessarily require physical force. Prec-\\nedent says otherwise.\\n The Supreme Court held in Curtis Johnson v. United States\\nthat “‘physical force’ means violent force—that is, force capa-\\nble of causing physical pain or injury to another person.” 559\\nU.S. 133, 140 (2010). Though the Court was interpreting a dif-\\nferent statute—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—than the one at issue here,\\nwe’ve confirmed that “[t]he definition of a crime of violence\\n\\fNo. 18-1799 3\\n\\nin § 924(e) mirrors the language found in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a),\\nand the statutes are interpreted in the same way.” De Leon\\nCastellanos v. Holder, 652 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2011).\\n We have already held that Wisconsin’s definition of bodily\\nharm “tracks what Curtis Johnson said would suffice.” Yates v.\\nUnited States, 842 F.3d 1051, 1053 (7th Cir. 2016) (holding that\\nthe Wisconsin offense of battery by a prisoner is a crime of\\nviolence under § 924(e)). And we reached a similar conclusion\\nin United States v. Yang, where we held that the Minnesota fel-\\nony of domestic assault—an offense premised on the same\\ndefinition of bodily harm as Wisconsin battery—was a crime\\nof violence. 799 F.3d 750, 756 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Minn. Stat.\\n§ 609.02 Subd. 7. Notwithstanding these authorities, Beltran-\\nAguilar provides a number of hypotheticals that he thinks\\ncould be prosecuted as Wisconsin batteries that would not in-\\nvolve physical force under Curtis Johnson: a blowhorn that im-\\npairs someone’s hearing, smelling salts that impair someone’s\\nsense of smell, and a substance in a drink that impairs some-\\none’s health or ability to walk.\\n Even if Beltran-Aguilar is right that these examples don’t\\ninvolve physical force, he fails to show that Wisconsin would\\nactually prosecute them as battery. “[T]he Supreme Court has\\ncautioned us not to allow our ‘legal imagination[s]’ to roam\\ntoo freely in postulating what types of conduct theoretically\\nmight be prosecuted under a state statute for purposes of de-\\ntermining whether the offense as defined qualifies as a predi-\\ncate offense for adverse federal action.” United States v. Jen-\\nnings, 860 F.3d 450, 460 (2017) (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Al-\\nvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193 (2007)). There must be “a realistic prob-\\nability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply\\nits statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition\\n\\f4 No. 18-1799\\n\\nof a crime.” Gonzales, 549 U.S. at 193. To show that realistic\\nprobability, an offender “must at least point to his own case\\nor other cases in which the state courts in fact did apply the\\nstatute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which he ar-\\ngues.” Id. Beltran-Aguilar has not identified any case in which\\nWisconsin’s definition of “bodily harm” has been applied in\\na way that does not accord with Curtis Johnson. Accordingly,\\nWisconsin battery is a crime of violence.\\n It’s worth noting that Beltran-Aguilar would have had an\\nuphill battle to show that his hypotheticals don’t involve\\nphysical force. In both Yates and Jennings, we concluded that\\nactions similar to those hypothesized by Beltran-Aguilar sat-\\nisfy Curtis Johnson’s definition. In Yates we explained that a\\nprisoner throwing a cup of urine at a guard involved physical\\nforce because urine can—and in the actual state court case un-\\nder discussion, did—cause pain to the guard’s eyes or nose.\\n842 F.3d at 1053. In Jennings we considered a variety of meth-\\nods of subtly exposing a victim to a harmful agent—for exam-\\nple, exposing a victim to a toxin, biological agent, or hidden\\nexplosive by means of secrecy or deception—and concluded\\nthat they all would involve physical force because “the agent\\nitself will, through a physical process, work a concrete harm\\non the victim.” 860 F.3d at 459. Like the actions considered in\\nYates and Jennings, Beltran-Aguilar’s hypotheticals all seem\\ncapable of causing physical pain or injury. But because he\\ncould not identify any Wisconsin conviction on similar facts,\\nwe need not decide the issue.\\n The petition for review is DENIED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":169,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578321,"string":"4,578,321"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-2980"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Kenneth Francis Ripple\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-2980\\nDERRICK D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nDANIEL L. CONLEY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:15-cv-01522-WTL-DML — William T. Lawrence, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Derrick D. Neely-Bey Tarik-El filed\\nthis action against various officials at the Correctional Indus-\\ntrial Facility (“CIF”) in Pendleton, Indiana, and at the Indi-\\nana Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). He alleged that\\nthe defendants had prevented him from participating fully\\nin the worship services of the Moorish Science Temple of\\nAmerica (“MSTA”) held at the CIF, in violation of the Free\\nExercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.\\n\\f2 No. 17-2980\\n\\nThe district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1915A. It dismissed claims against Commissioner Bruce\\nLemmon and Superintendent Wendy Knight on Eleventh\\nAmendment grounds and against Officer David Liebel on\\nthe ground that he had not participated personally in any of\\nthe actions against Mr. Neely-Bey. The district court allowed\\nthe damages claims against the remaining defendants to go\\nforward. Following discovery, the remaining defendants\\nmoved for summary judgment on qualified immunity\\ngrounds. The district court granted the motion.\\n Before us, Mr. Neely-Bey contends that the district court\\nfailed to recognize that his complaint sought both damages\\nand injunctive relief. He maintains that his injunctive relief\\nclaims must be reinstated because they are unaffected by\\nsovereign or qualified immunity. Moreover, he contends\\nthat the district court erred in granting qualified immunity\\nto the defendants on his damages claims.\\n We conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified\\nimmunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the\\nFree Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause and,\\ntherefore, affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to\\nthose claims. We agree with Mr. Neely-Bey that the district\\ncourt misread his complaint and that it clearly seeks injunc-\\ntive relief as well as damages against the defendants. More-\\nover, the district court should have read Mr. Neely-Bey’s pro\\nse free exercise claim as seeking injunctive relief under the\\nReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42\\nU.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”). Consequently, we must\\nremand so that the district court may consider whether in-\\njunctive relief should be granted on the free exercise claim.\\nIn addressing this matter, the district court first must deter-\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 3\\n\\nmine whether the free exercise claim and RLUIPA claims are\\nmoot. If it determines that the claims are not moot, it should\\nconsider whether injunctive relief is warranted. As a matter\\nof law, there is no basis for injunctive relief on the estab-\\nlishment clause claims, and we therefore direct the district\\ncourt to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on those\\nclaims.\\n I\\n BACKGROUND\\n A.\\n Until recently, Mr. Neely-Bey was incarcerated at CIF,\\nwhere he was an active member of the MSTA congregation.\\nThe MSTA is a national religious organization founded by\\nProphet Noble Drew Ali. 1 Its most important group worship\\nmeeting is held on Fridays and includes recitation of the\\nMoorish American Prayer, during which each adherent\\n“stands, [and] faces the East.” 2 After the prayer, a group\\nleader reads the Divine Constitution, Bylaws, and verses\\nfrom the Koran. Following the readings, the leader invites\\nother participants to comment upon the readings. Finally,\\nservices conclude with the “Warning from the Holy Proph-\\net” followed by another recitation of the Moorish American\\nPrayer.3 The MSTA also holds “Sunday School.” 4 During\\n\\n\\n1 R.81 at 97.\\n2 Id. at 98.\\n3 Id.\\n4It appears that, at some point, the MSTA group at CIF began meeting\\non Mondays instead of Sundays. See id. at 78 (Memo from Chaplain\\n (continued … )\\n\\f4 No. 17-2980\\n\\n2013 and 2014, Mr. Neely-Bey attended Friday Holy Day\\nservices and Sunday school. The records of the MSTA reflect\\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey regularly spoke at these meetings. 5\\n In January 2013, Mr. Neely-Bey submitted an affidavit to\\nIDOC Commissioner Lemmon. The cover letter stated that\\nMr. Neely-Bey was providing the affidavit to Commission-\\ner Lemmon “so that we may come to an understanding\\n[that] this affidavit is [b]inding on you and you[r] office.” 6 It\\nasserted that Mr. Neely-Bey was a “Sovereign Moorish Na-\\ntional”; that he was not subject to the enactments of the\\nUnited States Congress because he considered it to be a for-\\neign power; and that he “squarely challenge[d] the fraudu-\\nlent, usurping entanglement of JURISDICTION” over him. 7\\nThe affidavit requested a hearing to establish the IDOC’s au-\\nthority over Mr. Neely-Bey. As a result of the affidavit, the\\nIDOC classified Mr. Neely-Bey as a “Sovereign Citizen,”\\nwhich was designated as a “Security Threat Group.” 8\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nSmith setting forth how Mr. Neely-Bey may participate in “Monday\\nmeetings”).\\n5 See R.40; R.41; R.42.\\n6 R.70-3 at 2.\\n7 See id. at 3–4 (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n8 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey claims that “the record does not support\\nthat he subscribed to such ‘sovereign citizen’ beliefs or that he intended\\nto associate himself with such beliefs by identifying himself as a ‘Sover-\\neign Moorish National.’” Appellant’s Br. 9. However, there is no evi-\\ndence in the record that Mr. Neely-Bey contested or grieved this designa-\\ntion. Mr. Neely-Bey also does not maintain that sovereign citizens should\\nnot be considered a Security Threat Group. Thus, neither\\n (continued … )\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 5\\n\\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s affidavit made its way to Brother M.\\nDoles Bey, 9 the MSTA minister who led the services at the\\nCIF.10 On April 6, 2014, Brother Doles Bey sent a memoran-\\ndum on MSTA letterhead to, among others, David Liebel,\\nDirector of Religious and Volunteer Services Chaplains at\\nthe CIF; Brother V. Jones-Bey, Minister of Institutional Mis-\\nsion Affairs for the MSTA; and Mr. Neely-Bey. In his memo-\\nrandum, Brother Doles Bey explained that sovereign citizens\\ncould not be participating members of the MSTA. The memo\\nrelated that, at another institution, the MSTA had allowed an\\ninmate with a “Security Group Threat” designation to facili-\\ntate a service, and as a result, the institution’s MSTA group\\n“was shut down.” 11 Brother Doles Bey stated that\\n\\n( … continued)\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s classification as a sovereign citizen, his designation as a\\nmember of a Security Threat Group, nor the restrictions placed on Secu-\\nrity Threat Groups are at issue in this appeal.\\n9 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey repeatedly addresses Brother Doles Bey as a\\n“volunteer minister,” suggesting that all of his ministry work is volun-\\ntary and that he is not an official representative of the MSTA. The record\\ndoes not bear this out. In his complaint, Mr. Neely-Bey identifies Brother\\nDoles Bey as “the Minister & I.D.O.C. volunteer of the Moorish Science\\nTemple of America.” R.1 at 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, according to\\nIDOC policies, a volunteer like Brother Doles Bey must be “recognized\\nby a religious body.” R.81 at 37.\\n10 Mr. Neely-Bey alleges in his complaint that IDOC Commissioner\\nLemmon forwarded the affidavit to the Director of Religious Services,\\nDavid Liebel. R.1 at 3. Mr. Liebel presumably then passed it on to Broth-\\ner Doles Bey, although there is not an allegation in the complaint to that\\neffect. Neither party identifies any evidence in the record that establishes\\nhow the affidavit reached Brother Doles Bey.\\n11 R.81 at 71.\\n\\f6 No. 17-2980\\n\\nMr. Neely-Bey could attend services as a “guest,” but that he\\ncould not teach or serve as a facilitator. 12\\n On March 23, 2015, the Chaplain at the CIF, David Smith,\\nsent a memo to Mr. Neely-Bey in which he stated that he\\nhad “received [Mr. Neely-Bey’s] request to be added to the\\nMST of A Religious Services group” and that he needed\\nMr. Neely-Bey “to understand that by returning to this\\ngroup you agree to fully cooperate with and follow the April\\n6, 2014 sanctions placed on you by MST of A, Inc.” 13 Specifi-\\ncally, Mr. Neely-Bey was forbidden from standing, speaking\\nat, or facilitating any of the Friday services. He was allowed\\nto speak when called upon during their Monday meetings;\\nhowever, he could “not debate, instruct, dominate or speak\\nagainst the teaching of the Prophet, the MST of A, Inc., or the\\nU.S. Constitution.” 14\\n In late summer 2015, Chaplain Smith filed a “Report of\\nConduct” regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s actions during an\\nMSTA meeting. Chaplain Smith stated that he had witnessed\\nMr. Neely-Bey “speak and openly participate during the\\nFriday MSTA Holy Day meeting” and that these actions\\nwere in violation of the direct order that he had given to\\nMr. Neely-Bey, orally and in writing. 15 Chaplain Smith con-\\ncluded that Mr. Neely-Bey’s “actions … demonstrated his\\n\\n12 Id. at 72.\\n13Id. at 78. The parties do not explain why Mr. Neely-Bey, who had been\\nan active member of the MSTA in 2013 and 2014, had to request to be\\nadded to the group in 2015.\\n14 Id.\\n15 Id. at 73.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 7\\n\\nintention to interfere and disrupt MSTA services on Holy\\nDays.” 16\\n Officer Daniel Conley “screened” the conduct report,17\\nand a hearing was held at Mr. Neely-Bey’s request. At the\\nhearing, chaired by Officer Richard Sidwell, it was deter-\\nmined that Mr. Neely-Bey had ignored an order by Chaplain\\nSmith. Mr. Neely-Bey was given twenty hours of extra work\\nto be completed in the next month. Although the determina-\\ntion makes no mention of it, Mr. Neely-Bey testified at his\\ndeposition, and the defendants conceded for purposes of\\nsummary judgment, that Mr. Neely-Bey “was suspended\\nfrom [MSTA] meetings for one year.”18\\n Mr. Neely-Bey appealed to CIF Superintendent, Wendy\\nKnight. He argued that the sanction merely enforced the\\nMSTA’s ban on his participation in its services. Consequent-\\nly, because “the State cannot get [in]volved in M.S.T. of A.\\naffairs,” 19 the order could not be enforced. Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nappeal was denied. In her explanation, Superintendent\\nKnight stated:\\n\\n\\n\\n16 Id.\\n17 Again, the parties do not direct us to any place in the record contain-\\ning a description of the screening function. In admissions produced in\\nresponse to Mr. Neely-Bey’s requests, Officer Conley stated that he “had\\nreservation[s] about the conduct report.” Id. at 22. Neither in the admis-\\nsion, nor in any other place in the record, does Officer Conley explain the\\nnature of his reservations.\\n18 R.71 at 1.\\n19 R.81 at 76.\\n\\f8 No. 17-2980\\n\\n You were charged with code 347 “Refusing to\\n obey an order from staff” and you were found\\n guilty by the DHB chairman.\\n I find the Report of Conduct to be descriptive\\n and credible, and the statement provided by\\n staff within the body of the report did support\\n the finding. When any staff member gives you\\n an order, you need to follow it. After you have\\n followed the staff member’s order, if you do\\n not agree with that order or any order from\\n staff, then you have a right to follow the de-\\n partment’s grievance procedures. I find no er-\\n rors in your case and the Report of Conduct is\\n clear. You have provided me with no state-\\n ments or evidence to cause me to change the\\n decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer,\\n therefore: your appeal is denied.[ 20]\\n B.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed this action in the district court\\nagainst Commissioner Lemmon, Superintendent Knight, Di-\\nrector of Religious Services David Liebel, Chaplain Smith,\\nOfficer Conley, and Officer Sidwell. He alleged that he had\\nbeen subjected to religious persecution when his affidavit\\nwas forwarded to the MSTA, that the CIF had become en-\\ntangled in a religious dispute by enforcing the memorandum\\nof Brother Doles Bey, and that the CIF defendants had vio-\\nlated his First Amendment right to free exercise when Broth-\\ner Doles Bey’s memo was enforced. As a remedy,\\n\\n20 Id. at 77.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 9\\n\\nMr. Neely-Bey requested “that [he] receive $750,000 dollars”\\nand that the defendants “cease all action against [him].” 21\\n The district court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint\\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 22 The court determined that any\\nclaims for damages against Commissioner Lemmon and Su-\\nperintendent Knight in their official capacities were barred\\nby the Eleventh Amendment and therefore dismissed those\\nclaims. It also dismissed the claims against Mr. Liebel be-\\ncause he was not involved personally in the alleged depriva-\\ntion. The court therefore instructed the clerk “to remove\\nBruce Lemmon, Wendy Knight, and David Liebel from the\\ndocket.” 23 The court allowed the damages claims against\\nChaplain Smith, Officer Conley, and Officer Sidwell to pro-\\nceed. The court’s screening order was silent with respect to\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider. 24 He argued\\nthat the Eleventh Amendment did not bar his claims against\\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight because\\nthe claims were brought against the defendants in both their\\n\\n\\n21 R.1 at 6.\\n22 The district court initially dismissed Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, be-\\nlieving that it was duplicative of another action that Mr. Neely-Bey had\\nfiled. See R.8. Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider, pointing out\\nthat the disciplinary action on which the present action is based is differ-\\nent from the ones at issue in the earlier action. See R.10. The court grant-\\ned the motion to reconsider and conducted a merits screening under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1915A. See R.13.\\n23 R.13 at 3.\\n24 See R.17.\\n\\f10 No. 17-2980\\n\\nofficial capacities and their personal capacities.25\\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue, however, that the district court\\nshould reinstate his claims for injunctive relief because sov-\\nereign immunity did not operate as a bar to injunctive relief.\\nThe district court denied reconsideration “[f]or the reasons\\nset forth in the screening entry.”26\\n After discovery, the remaining defendants moved for\\nsummary judgment. Relying on Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,\\n530 U.S. 640 (2000), the defendants submitted that it was\\nclearly established that the MSTA had a First Amendment\\nright to choose its membership, and the sanction against\\nMr. Neely-Bey simply implemented that right. According to\\nthe defendants, “failure to enforce the MST of A memoran-\\ndum would be the equivalent of forcing the MST of A to as-\\nsociate with Neely-Bey as a member in violation of MST of\\nA’s First Amendment rights.” 27 Moreover, once the MSTA\\ndetermined that Mr. Neely-Bey could not participate in its\\nservices, IDOC was “prohibited from reviewing or question-\\ning [its] religious decisions.” 28\\n The defendants also asserted that, if they had violated\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s rights, they were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity. They noted that a “diligent search of Seventh Circuit\\nand United States Supreme Court cases ha[d] yielded no\\n\\n25He also argued that his claim against Mr. Liebel should be reinstated.\\nSee id. at 2.\\n26 R.19.\\n27 R.71 at 8.\\n28Id. at 7 (citing Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v.\\nEEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 186 (2012)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 11\\n\\ncases with closely analogous facts that would establish that\\nPlaintiffs’ [sic] rights have been violated in this case.” 29\\nTherefore, Mr. Neely-Bey had not met his burden of defeat-\\ning the qualified immunity defense.\\n In response, Mr. Neely-Bey maintained that IDOC’s en-\\nforcement of the limitations set forth in MSTA’s memoran-\\ndum violated the Establishment Clause and violated IDOC’s\\nown policies. 30 Regarding the defendants’ claim that they\\nwere enforcing MSTA’s associational rights, Mr. Neely-Bey\\nbelieved that Dale was distinguishable because he was not\\nasking to be appointed a leader of the MSTA, but only to\\nparticipate fully in the services.\\n Turning to the issue of qualified immunity,\\nMr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that\\nIDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex-\\ncept when required by penological interests. Mr. Neely-Bey\\nexplained that participating in the Friday services was a key\\nelement of the MSTA faith, that Chaplain Smith understood\\nthis, and that disciplining him for participating in the Friday\\nservices constituted an unreasonable burden on his free ex-\\nercise rights. He also claimed that the defendants had no le-\\ngitimate penological interests in preventing his participation\\nin Friday services. Turning specifically to Officers Conley\\nand Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey noted that Officer Conley admit-\\n\\n\\n29 Id. at 11.\\n30 Mr. Neely-Bey specifically identified the policy providing that “[t]he\\nDepartment does not endorse or recognize any particular denomination,\\nsect, or faction as the ‘correct’ manner to practice a particular religion.”\\nSee R.81 at 6.\\n\\f12 No. 17-2980\\n\\nted that he had reservations about Chaplain Smith’s conduct\\nreport, but nevertheless screened the conduct report. As for\\nOfficer Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that, at the time of\\nthe disciplinary hearing, Officer Sidwell was aware that the\\ndispute was of a religious as opposed to disciplinary nature.\\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue that, even if the doctrine of\\nqualified immunity protected the defendants from liability\\nfor damages, his claims for injunctive relief nevertheless\\ncould proceed.\\n The district court granted summary judgment to the re-\\nmaining defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. The\\ncourt explained that, although “[t]he general principles of\\nFirst Amendment law prohibiting officials from placing a\\nsubstantial burden on the free exercise of religion by inmates\\nare clearly established, … the qualified immunity defense\\nturns on whether the application of those principles to the\\ncircumstances faced by the defendants was clear at the\\ntime.” 31 “Here,” the court explained, Mr. Neely-Bey could\\nnot “prevail in his effort to overcome qualified immunity by\\nrelying on general principles of First Amendment right[s]”\\nbecause “[t]he Supreme Court has directed that ‘“clearly es-\\ntablished” law is not to be defined at a high level of generali-\\nty.’” 32 The court therefore entered judgment for the defend-\\nants.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n31 R.84 at 7.\\n32 Id. (quoting White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 13\\n\\n II\\n DISCUSSION\\nA. Free Exercise\\n 1. Claim for Damages\\n Mr. Neely-Bey first submits that the district court erred\\nin concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified\\nimmunity for damages related to his free exercise claim. The\\nprinciples governing this question are well-settled. Qualified\\nimmunity shields government officials from civil “liability\\n‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established\\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per-\\nson would have known.’” Purvis v. Oest, 614 F.3d 713, 720\\n(7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818\\n(1982)). A qualified immunity determination comprises two\\ninquiries; we must determine (1) “whether the plaintiff’s al-\\nlegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right,”\\nand (2) “whether the right was clearly established at the time\\nof defendant’s alleged misconduct.” McAllister v. Price, 615\\nF.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010). We are permitted to skip the\\nfirst inquiry and proceed directly to the question whether a\\nparticular right was clearly established. See, e.g., Whitlock v.\\nBrown, 596 F.3d 406, 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pearson v. Cal-\\nlahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). This is the approach that the dis-\\ntrict court took, and the defendants urge that we affirm the\\ndistrict court’s judgment on this basis.\\n As we frequently have explained, a clearly established\\nright is one that “is sufficiently clear that any reasonable of-\\nficial would understand that his or her actions violate that\\nright, meaning that existing precedent must have placed the\\nstatutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Zim-\\n\\f14 No. 17-2980\\n\\nmerman v. Doran, 807 F.3d 178, 182 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing\\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015)). “[A] case directly\\non point,” however, is not required. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). “The dispositive question is ‘whether\\nthe violative nature of particular conduct is clearly estab-\\nlished … .’” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (quoting al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. at 742). “This inquiry ‘“must be undertaken in light of the\\nspecific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”’”\\nId. (emphasis added) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.\\n194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)).\\n Here, the district court observed that there was no gov-\\nerning law “directly establishing that the defendants’ con-\\nduct in this case, where state officials enforced a ban from\\nparticipating in religious activities that was put in place by\\nthe religious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights\\nunder the First Amendment.” 33 Mr. Neely-Bey believes,\\nhowever, that the law “provided ‘fair warning’ to the de-\\nfendants ‘that their alleged [conduct] was unconstitution-\\nal.’” 34 According to Mr. Neely-Bey, the law was clearly es-\\ntablished that a prison official cannot deny a prisoner’s free\\nexercise rights based on the official’s understanding of the\\ntenets of a particular faith. He relies principally on Grayson\\nv. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012), and Vinning-El v. Ev-\\nans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011), for this proposition.\\n In Grayson, an inmate-adherent of the African Hebrew Is-\\nraelites of Jerusalem was forced to cut off his dreadlocks “on\\n\\n\\n33 R.84 at 7–8.\\n34 Appellant’s Br. 35–36 (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866\\n(2014) (per curiam)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 15\\n\\nthe ground that they posed a security risk.” 666 F.3d at 451.\\nGrayson claimed that not cutting his hair was an element of\\nhis faith; specifically, he informed prison officials that he had\\ntaken “the Nazarite vow of separation,” which required him\\nto refrain from cutting his hair. Id. at 454. The prison chap-\\nlain denied Grayson’s request to grow out his hair because\\nwearing dreadlocks was not a required element of the Afri-\\ncan Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. The chaplain acknowl-\\nedged that Rastafarians were allowed to have dreadlocks,\\nbut distinguished their situation because having dreadlocks\\nwas a requirement of their faith. On appeal, we observed\\nthat Grayson’s act of not cutting his hair could have been a\\nlegitimate aspect of his personal faith. We explained that\\n“[p]rison authorities are always entitled to balance security\\nconcerns against religious practices, and the need to do so\\nmay be greater with regard to optional than to mandatory\\npractices.” Id. at 455. Nevertheless,\\n [p]rison chaplains may not determine which\\n religious observances are permissible because\\n orthodox. … No more can the prison permit\\n Rastafarians to wear long hair and without jus-\\n tification forbid a sincere African Hebrew Isra-\\n elite of Jerusalem to do so, even if he is more\\n zealous in his religious observances than his\\n religion requires him to be.\\nId.\\n We reached a similar result in Vinning-El. Vinning-El in-\\nvolved an MSTA inmate who asked for a vegan diet as a re-\\nligious accommodation. The chaplain denied the request,\\n“observing that the tenets of [the MSTA] require a non-pork\\ndiet,” not a vegan one. 657 F.3d at 592. Vinning-El sued, and\\n\\f16 No. 17-2980\\n\\nthe district court denied the chaplain qualified immunity.\\nOn appeal, we observed that the district court had not made\\nany findings concerning the chaplain’s motivations in deny-\\ning Vinning-El’s request. The chaplain could have denied\\nthe request because he did not believe that a vegan diet was\\na tenet of the MSTA faith, or he could have denied it because\\nhe did not believe that the request was being made on reli-\\ngious grounds. If the former, the chaplain was not entitled to\\nqualified immunity because it was clearly established at the\\ntime of the denial that “[a] personal religious faith is entitled\\nto as much protection as one espoused by an organized\\ngroup.” Id. at 593. However, if the latter, then the chaplain\\nhad not violated the inmate’s rights because mere dietary\\npreferences, unrelated to religious observances, need not be\\naccommodated. Absent a determination as to the chaplain’s\\nreasoning, we could not resolve the qualified immunity\\nquestion and therefore remanded the case to the district\\ncourt. See id. at 595.\\n Neither Grayson nor Vinning-El speak to the circumstanc-\\nes before us today. In both cases, the individual inmate re-\\nquested that his religious belief be accommodated even\\nthough that belief was arguably personal to him and more\\ndemanding than the ones generally followed by adherents of\\nthe religion with which he professed to be affiliated.\\nMr. Neely-Bey presents a very different situation. He does\\nnot ask the CIF to accommodate a personal belief not re-\\nquired of MSTA adherents. Rather, he asks that the CIF re-\\nquire the MSTA to accept him as a full member even though\\nhis belief system as a declared sovereign citizen differs sub-\\nstantially from that of the MSTA and MSTA liturgical prac-\\ntices require that its adherents share their religious beliefs in\\nthe course of their worship services. The MSTA consequent-\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 17\\n\\nly believes that admitting Mr. Neely-Bey as a member would\\nchallenge its teachings and, possibly, jeopardize its status.\\n This is the crux of the defendants’ position: They main-\\ntain that, had they required the MSTA to allow Mr. Neely-\\nBey to participate as a full member in Friday services, they\\nwould have violated MSTA’s associational rights. See Boy\\nScouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).\\n In Dale, a former Eagle Scout “applied for adult member-\\nship in the Boy Scouts” as an assistant scoutmaster. Id. at\\n644. The BSA initially approved the application, but later re-\\nvoked his membership after discovering that Dale was ho-\\nmosexual and had taken public stances in favor of gay\\nrights. According to the BSA, being a homosexual was anti-\\nthetical to its mission. Dale then instituted a state-court ac-\\ntion claiming that the BSA’s revocation of his membership\\nviolated New Jersey’s law prohibiting discrimination in pub-\\nlic accommodations. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed\\nwith Dale and further held that requiring BSA to accept Dale\\nas a scout leader did not violate BSA’s right to association\\nunder the First Amendment.\\n The Supreme Court reversed. It observed that “[t]he\\nforced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes\\nthe group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence\\nof that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability\\nto advocate public or private viewpoints.” Id. at 648. In as-\\nsessing whether this was the case, the Court explained that\\ndeference is owed to the group’s formulation of its “goals\\nand philosophy,” as well as its “view of what would impair\\nits expression.” Id. at 651, 653. Because the BSA believed that\\nits principles precluded the practice of homosexuality and\\nbecause “Dale’s presence in the [BSA] would … force the or-\\n\\f18 No. 17-2980\\n\\nganization to send a message … that [it] accepts homosexual\\nconduct as a legitimate form of behavior,” “the forced inclu-\\nsion of Dale would significantly affect its expression.” Id. at\\n653, 656.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey believes that the defendants’ reliance on\\nDale is misplaced. Dale, he contends, was in a leadership\\nrole, whereas he only was asking to participate as a member\\nof the MSTA. The Court in Dale, however, did not limit its\\ndiscussion to leaders of organizations, but instead asked\\nwhether “[t]he forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a\\ngroup infringes the group’s freedom of expressive associa-\\ntion.” Id. at 648. Although the relative position of the indi-\\nvidual in a group may bear on whether the group’s inclusion\\nof the individual “affects in a significant way the group’s\\nability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” id., the\\nCourt spoke in terms of “membership” as well as leadership,\\nsee id. at 654–56. Moreover, the record reflects that, as a full\\nmember of the MSTA, Mr. Neely-Bey would be speaking to\\nother members of the congregation and commenting on the\\nwords of the Prophet and passages of the Koran. Requiring\\nthe MSTA to allow an individual to speak at its worship ser-\\nvices when that person holds beliefs antithetical to its own\\nwould significantly affect its ability to preserve and pass on\\nits message.\\n Here, Chaplain Smith and the enforcement officers were\\nrequired to balance the religious practices of one adherent\\nagainst the rights of other inmates to exercise their religious\\nbeliefs in accordance with MSTA teaching. Neither Grayson\\nnor Vinning-El offers guidance for correctional officers who\\nfind themselves in this dilemma. Indeed, there do not appear\\nto be any cases that instruct prison officials on how they\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 19\\n\\nshould strike the appropriate balance between these compet-\\ning interests. 35 As we have explained previously, “[p]ublic\\nofficials can be held liable for violating clearly established\\nlaw, but not for choosing sides on a debatable issue.” O’Keefe\\nv. Chisholm, 769 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2014). The district\\ncourt, therefore, did not err in granting the defendants quali-\\nfied immunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s damages claims under\\nthe Free Exercise Clause. 36\\n 2. Claim for Injunctive Relief\\n Mr. Neely-Bey next submits that, even if the district court\\ncorrectly granted qualified immunity to the defendants on\\nhis claim for damages, it failed to recognize that his com-\\nplaint also stated a claim for injunctive relief under both the\\nFree Exercise Clause and under RLUIPA. Moreover,\\nMr. Neely-Bey continues, qualified immunity does not pro-\\ntect the defendants from a claim for injunctive relief. See\\nHannemann v. S. Door Cnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th\\nCir. 2012). Consequently, he contends, a remand is necessary\\n\\n\\n35 Indeed, Mr. Neely-Bey notes that “Defendants have cited no decision\\nsuggesting the government can rely on a group’s associational interests\\nto limit an individual’s participation in religious services, based solely on\\nhis expression of allegedly unorthodox beliefs.” Appellant’s Br. 31. That\\ncourts have not had to grapple with this difficult issue would seem to\\ncounsel the application of qualified immunity.\\n36 Notably, the defendants make only a passing reference to whether\\nallowing Mr. Neely-Bey to participate as a full member of the religion\\nwould jeopardize the security or rehabilitative concerns of the institu-\\ntion. For reasons not at all clear to us, with the exception of this single,\\noblique reference in its appellate brief, this contention, which may well\\nhave merit, is never developed.\\n\\f20 No. 17-2980\\n\\nfor the district court to consider the merits of his claim for\\ninjunctive relief.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, among other relief, asks that\\nthe defendants “cease all action against [him].” 37 When the\\ndistrict court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1915A, it nevertheless acknowledged only that he\\nwas “seek[ing] monetary relief”; the court made no mention\\nof Mr. Neely-Bey’s prayer for injunctive relief. 38 Proceeding\\non the assumption that Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims were for\\nmonetary relief alone, the court dismissed the claims against\\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight in their\\nofficial capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and\\ndirected that these defendants be removed from the docket.\\nThe court allowed only the damages claims against Chaplain\\nSmith and Officers Conley and Sidwell to go forward.\\nMr. Neely-Bey moved for reconsideration of the screening\\norder, but not on the ground that the district court had mis-\\nread his complaint to include only claims for damages.\\n a.\\n Before us, the defendants at least tacitly acknowledge\\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint requested injunctive relief. 39\\nThey assert, however, that Mr. Neely-Bey abandoned his\\nclaim for injunctive relief by not raising the issue in his mo-\\n\\n\\n37 R.1 at 6.\\n38 R.13 at 2.\\n39 See Appellees’ Br. 28 (noting that the district court believed that\\nMr. Neely-Bey was seeking only damages and acknowledging that “this\\nassumption may have been a mistake”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 21\\n\\ntion to reconsider or in his response to the motion for sum-\\nmary judgment.\\n It is the general rule that a litigant does not abandon an\\nargument by failing to raise it in a motion to reconsider.\\nHamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 897 F.3d 835, 838\\n(7th Cir. 2018) (“And it is never necessary to remonstrate\\nwith a judge after an order has been entered. Motions for re-\\nconsideration are discretionary, not obligatory.”). The de-\\nfendants nevertheless submit that, “where a plaintiff is seek-\\ning relief from judgment that is most appropriately awarded\\nby a trial court on a Rule 60 motion, such as where the plain-\\ntiff is claiming oversight, mistake or clerical error, the plain-\\ntiff may waive his right to present that type of argument on\\nappeal if he did not make the appropriate Rule 60 motion\\nbelow.” Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 958–59 (7th Cir.\\n2000). Here, they contend, the district court seems simply to\\nhave misread or overlooked the full extent of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims, and such an oversight falls neatly\\nwithin the coverage of Rule 60(b)(1). 40 Consequently, the de-\\nfendants submit that, because Mr. Neely-Bey failed to raise\\nthe district court’s oversight in a Rule 60(b) motion, he can-\\nnot now pursue his claim for injunctive relief.\\n We do not believe that Denius compels this result. First,\\nthe language on which the defendants rely was not part of\\nour holding. After discussing what might be the effect of De-\\n\\n40 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides: “(b) Grounds for\\nRelief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just\\nterms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a fi-\\nnal judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mis-\\ntake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[] ….”\\n\\f22 No. 17-2980\\n\\nnius’s failure to file a Rule 60(b) motion if the court had over-\\nlooked his claim for injunctive relief, we explained that this,\\nin fact, had not occurred: “This is not a case where the dis-\\ntrict court completely overlooked plaintiff’s claims for equi-\\ntable relief.” Id. at 959. Rather, we observed, the district court\\nvery clearly had disposed of both “Denius’s claims for mon-\\netary and equitable relief through its summary judgment\\nopinion.” Id. Thus, we did not have to decide whether Deni-\\nus’s actions constituted waiver (or abandonment) because\\nthe nature of the district court’s error did not fall within the\\nlanguage of Rule 60(b).\\n Additionally, our discussion in Denius focused on the ef-\\nfect of failing to bring a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b), how-\\never, governs motions that seek to “‘relieve a party or its le-\\ngal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceed-\\ning’ for the enumerated reasons.” Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc.,\\n788 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n60(b)). The operative order here, however, was the district\\ncourt’s screening order, which was interlocutory. See DaSilva\\nv. Rymarkiewicz, 888 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 2018). It was in\\nthat order that the court narrowed the scope of the action to\\ninclude only claims for damages. When the defendants later\\nmoved for summary judgment, they reasonably focused\\ntheir motion on the claims for damages—the only ones still\\nbefore the court. Mr. Neely-Bey’s response, as well, was di-\\nrected to the claims for damages. There was no obvious way\\nfor Mr. Neely-Bey to revisit the dismissed claims in the brief-\\ning on the summary-judgment motion. Moreover, it was the\\ndistrict court’s summary-judgment ruling that immediately\\npreceded its entry of final judgment, the triggering event for\\na Rule 60(b) motion. Under these circumstances,\\nMr. Neely-Bey was not required to seek relief under Rule\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 23\\n\\n60(b) for the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his claims\\nfor injunctive relief. Consequently, Mr. Neely-Bey has not\\nwaived, or otherwise abandoned, his claim for injunctive re-\\nlief under the Free Exercise Clause. 41\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n41 Mr. Neely-Bey’s situation is readily distinguishable from the other\\ncases on which the defendants rely. See Heiar v. Crawford Cnty, 746 F.2d\\n1190, 1196 (7th Cir. 1984); Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d\\n335 (5th Cir. 2015). In Heiar, we held that the defendants had waived\\ntheir statute-of-limitations defense because, although included in the\\nanswer, they never again raised it—in a dispositive, pretrial motion, as\\nan item in the pretrial order, or in a motion for judgment at trial. See 746\\nF.2d at 1196. Here, however, the district court eliminated the claim for\\ninjunctive relief sua sponte, and there was no clear opportunity for\\nMr. Neely-Bey to raise the issue again with the district court before the\\nentry of final judgment. In Peterson, the plaintiff’s complaint had includ-\\ned a prayer for “[a]ny further legal and equitable relief to which Peterson\\nmay be justly entitled.” 806 F.3d at 339 (alteration in original). However,\\nPeterson did not request specific injunctive relief until after a jury verdict\\nin his favor. The district court granted the injunction, but the Fifth Cir-\\ncuit reversed and vacated the injunction. The Fifth Circuit explained that\\nthe defendant had been prejudiced by Peterson’s inaction because, had it\\nknown that injunctive relief was at issue, it would have called additional\\nwitnesses and presented evidence specifically directed to that claim for\\nrelief. However, it had been deprived of that opportunity by the plain-\\ntiff’s failure to raise the issue earlier. Here, the defendants include boil-\\nerplate language that allowing Mr. Neely-Bey to renew his claim for in-\\njunctive relief “would prejudice the defendants by inhibiting their ability\\nto defend against Neely-Bey’s claims and substantially increase the de-\\nfendants’ potential liability.” Appellees’ Br. 32. However, the defendants\\ndo not explain how or why this is the case. Unlike the defendant in Peter-\\nson, they have not lost their ability to present evidence in opposition to\\nthis claim, and they do not explain how revival of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim\\nfor injunctive relief might substantially increase their potential liability.\\n\\f24 No. 17-2980\\n\\n b.\\n Waiver and abandonment are the only bases that the de-\\nfendants have offered for affirming the district court’s dis-\\nmissal of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief. Alt-\\nhough “[w]e may affirm a district court’s dismissal order on\\nany basis supported by the record,” Craig v. Rich Twp. High\\nSch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013), we cannot\\nconclude, on this limited record, that judgment in favor of\\nthe defendants is warranted.\\n To establish a free exercise claim, Mr. Neely-Bey “had to\\nsubmit evidence from which a jury could reasonably find\\nthat the defendants personally and unjustifiably placed a\\nsubstantial burden on his religious practices.” Thompson v.\\nHolm, 809 F.3d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Hernandez v.\\nC.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989)). The Supreme Court has ex-\\nplained that a substantial burden is one that “put[s] substan-\\ntial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to\\nviolate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 718\\n(1981). In the prison context, such a burden is justified if it is\\n“reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.”\\nThompson, 809 F.3d at 380 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,\\n89–91 (1987)).\\n Here, Mr. Neely-Bey asserts, and the defendants do not\\ncontest, that participation in Friday services, including\\nstanding to pray and discussing the words of the Prophet,\\nare central practices of the MSTA faith. The ban enforced by\\nthe CIF prevents Mr. Neely-Bey from fully participating in\\nthe Friday services. The question therefore is whether the\\nban is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 25\\n\\n Mr. Neely-Bey maintains that “the sole reason offered by\\nDefendants for these restrictions was enforcement of a\\nmemorandum from an outside MSTA volunteer minister.” 42\\nAccording to Mr. Neely-Bey, “[i]t was, purely and simply, a\\nreaction to perceived religious heresy,” and the defendants’\\nenforcement of religious orthodoxy “is not a legitimate peno-\\nlogical interest.” 43\\n As we already have discussed, however, this statement\\ndoes not fairly characterize the situation. Brother Doles Bey’s\\nmemo simply does not request that the prison enforce any\\nreligious doctrine. It does not ask the CIF, for instance, to\\nserve MSTA adherents only porkless meals (a requirement\\nof the faith) and to enforce that abstinence through disci-\\npline. Instead, the memo simply requested that the CIF al-\\nlow the MSTA to choose those who may speak authoritative-\\nly on matters of faith. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nassertion, there is evidence in the record to establish that the\\nCIF’s actions were motivated by a desire to protect the rights\\nof other MSTA adherents at the CIF. The memorandum from\\nBrother Doles Bey clearly articulates a concern that, if\\nMr. Neely-Bey, a professed sovereign citizen, were allowed\\nto speak at MSTA services, the congregation of worshippers\\nmight be disbanded. It also refers to the need for the MSTA\\nto conduct the Friday prayer services in accordance with the\\nrequirements of its tradition. 44\\n\\n\\n42 Appellant’s Br. 28.\\n43 Id. at 28–29.\\n44\\n See R.81 at 72 (“The Acting Chairman presides over the[] meetings and\\nmakes sure that the meeting is opened and closed according to the laws\\n (continued … )\\n\\f26 No. 17-2980\\n\\n Although the term “penological interests” is most typi-\\ncally articulated in terms of a penal institution’s interest in\\nsecurity and financial stability, it is well-established that the\\nterm also encompasses far wider concerns of just governance\\nin the penal setting. See, e.g., Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530–\\n32 (2006) (plurality opinion) (holding that encouraging pro-\\ngress toward rehabilitation serves legitimate penological ob-\\njectives); Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 364 (3d Cir. 2006) (not-\\ning that “the health and safety of inmates … are legitimate\\npenological interests”); Goodwin v. Turner, 908 F.2d 1395,\\n1399–1400 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that treating male and fe-\\nmale inmates equally furthered a legitimate penological in-\\nterest). We have no doubt that the term also involves the\\nprotection of the constitutional rights of other prisoners. In-\\ndeed, prison officials are under a constitutional duty to pro-\\ntect those rights. We therefore have no doubt that the prison\\nofficials are on solid ground in maintaining that they have a\\nright, and indeed an obligation, to protect the right of other\\nprisoners who adhere to the MSTA faith to worship in a\\ncongregational manner to the extent that such a practice is\\nconsistent with other penal objectives.\\n Of course, in asserting such an objective and in choosing\\na means to achieve such an objective, Turner v. Safley, 482\\nU.S. 78, 89–90 (1987), teaches that prison officials cannot rely\\non the mere incantation of a penal interest but must come\\nforward with record evidence that substantiates that the in-\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nand Customs of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. and sets\\nthe tone for services to flow smoothly and without [sic] from the\\nbody/membership; and guests.”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 27\\n\\nterest is truly at risk and that prison officials have chosen an\\nappropriate manner to assert that interest. Before us, the de-\\nfendants justify their actions only in terms of the MSTA’s\\nrights without any reference to the possible impact on the\\nsecurity, operations, or finances of the CIF. Under such cir-\\ncumstances, we cannot conclude that the defendants have\\narticulated a legitimate “penological” reason for denying\\nMr. Neely-Bey full participation in MSTA’s Friday services. 45\\n The merits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief\\ntherefore remain an open question. In considering this ques-\\ntion, the district court should not only determine the propri-\\nety of injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause, but\\npossible relief under RLUIPA. We have observed that, when\\na pro se prisoner asserts a claim under the Free Exercise\\nClause, the district court should interpret that constitutional\\nclaim to include a statutory claim under RLUIPA. Grayson,\\n666 F.3d at 451.46 RLUIPA prohibits prison officials from\\n\\n45 In writing the Report of Conduct, Chaplain Smith interpreted\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s actions as intending to interfere with and disrupt MSTA\\nservices on Holy Days. See R.81 at 73. Avoiding disruption of, and inter-\\nference with, the meetings of authorized groups at the CIF is a legitimate\\npenological interest. However, as already discussed, the defendants have\\nnot argued that this was a consideration in the action they took against\\nMr. Neely-Bey.\\n46 Although damages are not available under RLUIPA, injunctive relief\\nis. See Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, because\\nsovereign immunity and qualified immunity protect government offi-\\ncials only from damages suits, those doctrines cannot protect officials\\nfrom claims for injunctive relief brought under RLUIPA. See Sorrentino v.\\nGodinez, 777 F.3d 410, 415 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Sovereign immunity normally\\ndoes not bar suits for injunctive relief in federal court alleging that a state\\nofficial violated the federal constitution or laws.”); Hannemann v. S. Door\\n (continued … )\\n\\f28 No. 17-2980\\n\\n“impos[ing] a substantial burden on the religious exercise”\\nof an inmate “unless the government demonstrates that im-\\nposition of the burden on that person … is the least restric-\\ntive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental inter-\\nest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Because RLUIPA “confers\\ngreater religious rights on prisoners than the free exercise\\nclause has been interpreted to do,” Grayson, 666 F.3d at 451,\\nit is possible that Mr. Neely-Bey is entitled to statutory in-\\njunctive relief even if he cannot establish a right to relief un-\\nder the Free Exercise Clause.\\n A word of caution. On remand, the district court first\\nshould consider whether subsequent events have rendered\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. Prior to\\noral argument, the defendants notified us that\\nMr. Neely-Bey had been transferred from the CIF to the\\nWestville Correctional Facility. At oral argument, counsel for\\nthe defendants suggested that the transfer rendered\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. However,\\nthere is no evidence in the record regarding how\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s transfer will affect his ability to participate\\nin MSTA worship. Moreover, we do not know the likelihood\\nof Mr. Neely-Bey being transferred back to the CIF. See\\nYoung v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 373–74 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting\\nthat the likelihood of being transferred back to an institution\\nis a factual determination for the district court). We leave it,\\ntherefore, to the district court to determine on a more devel-\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nCnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he defense of quali-\\nfied immunity does not protect defendants from an action for injunctive\\nrelief.”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 29\\n\\noped record the effect of Mr. Neely-Bey’s transfer on his\\nclaims for injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause\\nand RLUIPA.\\n In sum, we agree with the district court that the defend-\\nants are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nclaims for damages under the Free Exercise Clause. Howev-\\ner, the district court failed to consider Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nclaims for injunctive relief under either the Free Exercise\\nClause or under RLUIPA. We therefore remand to the dis-\\ntrict court for further consideration of these claims in the\\nfirst instance, including the effect of any subsequent events\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\\nB. Establishment Clause\\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the district court erred\\nin failing to address his Establishment Clause claim. He fur-\\nther asserts that, had the district court considered the claim,\\nit would have concluded that the defendants violated the\\nEstablishment Clause in enforcing Brother Doles Bey’s pro-\\nhibition against his full participation in MSTA meetings.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey is correct that the district court’s order\\ngranting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment did\\nnot explicitly mention the Establishment Clause. However, it\\ndid speak more broadly of whether the defendants’ actions\\nhad violated Mr. Neely-Bey’s “rights under the First\\nAmendment.” 47 It concluded that there was no controlling\\nauthority “directly establishing that the defendants’ conduct\\nin this case, where state officials enforced a ban from partici-\\n\\n\\n47 R.84 at 8.\\n\\f30 No. 17-2980\\n\\npating in religious activities that was put in place by the re-\\nligious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights under\\nthe First Amendment.” 48 It therefore granted qualified im-\\nmunity to the defendants. We turn, therefore, to the question\\nwhether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim under the Establishment Clause.\\n 1.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey submits that, at the time Chaplain Smith\\nlimited his participation in MSTA meetings, it was clear that\\nsuch action violated the Establishment Clause. He begins by\\nnoting that then, as now, “[a] government policy or practice\\nviolates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular pur-\\npose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or\\n(3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.” Kauf-\\nman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing\\nLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971)). According to\\nMr. Neely-Bey, the defendants’ actions violated all three\\nprongs.\\n First, he claims that there is no secular purpose for ban-\\nning him from participating in MSTA Holy Day services. In-\\nstead, he contends, the defendants’ “only reason for impos-\\ning this restriction is a desire to enforce the religious di-\\nrective of an outside volunteer minister, a directive that is\\nbased entirely on religious orthodoxy.”49 We cannot accept\\nthis submission. In determining whether a government ac-\\ntion has a secular purpose, “a government’s characterization\\nof its purpose is entitled to deference, although courts must\\n\\n48 Id. at 7–8.\\n49 Appellant’s Br. 41.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 31\\n\\nensure that the government’s characterization is sincere.”\\nVision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Fairly read, the de-\\nfendants have stated that their reason for giving effect to\\nBrother Doles Bey’s memo was to protect the associational\\nrights of the MSTA to choose, in the context of a religious\\nworship ceremony, participants and leaders of the ob-\\nservance. Chaplain Smith’s directive to Mr. Neely-Bey\\nmakes this objective crystal clear. The directive explicitly\\nrecognizes Mr. Neely-Bey “as a guest of MST of A,” who\\ncould “listen,” but not instruct at MSTA meetings. 50 In pro-\\ntecting the rights of the other prisoners, as was their obliga-\\ntion, the defendants may have reinforced incidentally the\\ntenets of that faith. There is no evidence in the record, how-\\never, their actions were designed to produce such an effect. 51\\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the primary effect of\\nthe action is to advance the orthodoxy of the MSTA. He be-\\nlieves that his situation mirrors the “pernicious fusion” of\\nchurch and state that the Court condemned in Larkin v.\\nGrendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), and Board of Education\\n\\n\\n\\n50 R.81 at 78.\\n51 Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that he is being singled out because of\\nhis religious beliefs. “The restriction imposed by Defendants,”\\nMr. Neely-Bey explains, “which prohibits [him] from speaking or stand-\\ning during Friday Holy Day services while others do so[,] is not based on\\nany neutral or generally applicable rules about conduct or even member-\\nship in religious groups or participation in religious services.” Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 42. It is, however, based on a neutral rule—that religious asso-\\nciations should be able to control their own leadership and membership.\\n\\f32 No. 17-2980\\n\\nof Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687\\n(1994). 52\\n In Larkin, a Massachusetts state law provided that estab-\\nlishments “located within a radius of five hundred feet of a\\nchurch or school shall not be licensed for the sale of alcoholic\\nbeverages if the governing body of such church or school\\nfile[d] [a] written objection” to the license. 459 U.S. at 117 (in-\\nternal quotation marks omitted). The Court determined that\\nthe statute resulted in an unconstitutional cessation of gov-\\nernmental authority to a religious institution:\\n Section 16C gives churches the right to deter-\\n mine whether a particular applicant will be\\n granted a liquor license, or even which one of\\n several competing applicants will receive a li-\\n cense.\\n The churches’ power under the statute is\\n standardless, calling for no reasons, findings,\\n or reasoned conclusions. That power may\\n therefore be used by churches to promote goals\\n beyond insulating the church from undesirable\\n neighbors; it could be employed for explicitly\\n religious goals, for example, favoring liquor li-\\n censes for members of that congregation or\\n adherents of that faith.\\nId. at 125. It therefore did “not strain” the Court’s “prior\\nholdings to say that the statute can be seen as having a ‘pri-\\nmary’ and ‘principal’ effect of advancing religion.” Id. at 126.\\n\\n\\n52 Id. at 44.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 33\\n\\n Similarly, in Kiryas Joel Village School District, a special\\nstate law had created a school district, the lines of which\\nwere the same as the lines of property owned by a Hasidic\\nJewish congregation. The result was that the provision of\\npublic educational services within a district had been\\nawarded based on religious views and was completely con-\\ntrolled by a religious body. The Court observed that the Free\\nExercise and Establishment Clauses “‘compel[] the State to\\npursue a course of “neutrality” toward religion,’ favoring\\nneither one religion over others nor religious adherents col-\\nlectively over nonadherents.” Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill.\\nSch. Dist., 512 U.S. at 696 (quoting Comm. for Pub. Ed. & Reli-\\ngious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 792–93 (1973)). The\\nstatute at issue, the Court explained, “depart[ed] from this\\nconstitutional command by delegating the State’s discretion-\\nary authority over public schools to a group defined by its\\ncharacter as a religious community, in a legal and historical\\ncontext that gives no assurance that governmental power\\nhas been or will be exercised neutrally.” Id.\\n In both Larken and Kiryas Joel Village School District, there-\\nfore, a formal enactment ceded a discretionary function of\\ngovernance to a religious body. The CIF, however, has not\\nceded disciplinary authority to the MSTA. The CIF has not\\ngiven the MSTA the power to discipline an MSTA member\\nif, for instance, the member fails to attend Friday services.\\nInstead, the MSTA asked the CIF defendants to protect its\\nright to control the religious content of the MSTA’s own\\nmeetings by determining who may or may not teach its con-\\ngregants. Here, a religious entity has not been given carte\\nblanche to administer a government program or bestow a\\ngovernment benefit as it sees fit.\\n\\f34 No. 17-2980\\n\\n Finally, Mr. Neely-Bey submits that the CIF’s enforce-\\nment of Brother Doles Bey’s memo violates the entangle-\\nment prong of the Lemon test. To establish excessive entan-\\nglement with religion, Mr. Neely-Bey has to “demonstrate\\n‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of\\nthe sovereign in religious activity.’” Vision Church, 468 F.3d\\nat 995 (quoting Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equaliza-\\ntion of California, 493 U.S. 378, 393 (1990)). “The general rule\\nis that, to constitute excessive entanglement, the government\\naction must involve ‘intrusive government participation in,\\nsupervision of, or inquiry into religious affairs.’” Id. (quoting\\nUnited States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 631\\n(7th Cir. 2000)).\\n Mr. Neely-Bey does not address these standards or sug-\\ngest how the evidence in the record establishes the level of\\nintrusiveness required for entanglement. Instead, he submits\\nthat Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009), necessitates\\nsuch a finding of entanglement.\\n In Nelson, an Illinois inmate had requested a meatless di-\\net on Fridays as an act of penance in accordance with his\\nCatholic faith. The correctional facility’s chaplain, Miller, re-\\nviewed the request, “cross-checking the inmate’s declared\\nreligious affiliation to determine if a religious diet was re-\\nquired”; specifically, he “looked for confirmation of the reli-\\ngious dietary tenet ‘on paper’—that is, he looked for confir-\\nmation of the requirement in some ‘church document’—as\\nopposed to inquiring regarding the spiritual goals of the in-\\nmate.” Id. at 872. The prison chaplain denied the request,\\nand, in his denial, he “cited several Bible passages purport-\\nedly contradicting Nelson’s beliefs regarding penance.” Id. at\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 35\\n\\n881. Eventually, at the direction of the warden, Nelson re-\\nceived a vegan diet.\\n Nelson filed an action against Miller and several other\\nadministrators at the correctional facility, alleging, among\\nother claims, a violation of the Establishment Clause. Specif-\\nically, Nelson alleged that Miller had “favored Muslim and\\nAfrican Hebrew Israelite prisoners by approving vegan diets\\nfor those prisoners without obtaining written verification\\nthat such diets were required by their religions.” Id. at 880–\\n81. The district court, however, “found that Nelson had not\\nproven a violation of the establishment clause because there\\nwere valid neutral reasons for Miller’s actions in this re-\\ngard.” Id. at 881. On appeal, we agreed with the district\\ncourt. We explained that the correctional facility’s regula-\\ntions\\n provided that prisoners could abstain from\\n “any foods the consumption of which violates\\n their required religious tenets” and the district\\n court concluded that Miller had required doc-\\n umentation because he was unfamiliar with\\n any Catholic “required religious tenet” which\\n necessitated a non-meat diet. Under the district\\n court’s reasoning, Miller did not ask Muslim\\n and African Hebrew Israelite prisoners to\\n submit verification because he understood\\n from his experience that a limited diet was part\\n of many of these prisoners’ religious practice.\\nId.\\n Nevertheless, we observed, Miller’s denial, which “cited\\nseveral Bible passages purportedly contradicting Nelson’s\\n\\f36 No. 17-2980\\n\\nbeliefs regarding penance, improperly entangled [Miller] in\\nmatters of religious interpretation. It simply [wa]s not ap-\\npropriate for a prison official to argue with a prisoner re-\\ngarding the objective truth of a prisoner’s religious belief.”\\nId.\\n We fail to see Nelson’s application to the circumstances\\nhere. Chaplain Smith did not undertake his own review of\\nMSTA doctrine. Rather, he was told by the MSTA minister at\\nthe CIF, Brother Doles Bey, 53 that Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession\\nof sovereign citizenship 54 precluded him from full member-\\nship and participation in the MSTA. This tension between\\nthe tenets of the MSTA and the sovereign-citizen movement\\nis well documented in our case law. See Bey v. State, 847 F.3d\\n559, 560–61 (7th Cir. 2017). Chaplain Smith accepted the\\nstatement of the MSTA representative; he made no commen-\\ntary at all concerning the “objective truth” of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s beliefs. He simply forbade him from dis-\\nrupting the MSTA service.\\n In sum, at the very least, Chaplain Smith did not act in a\\nmanner inconsistent with existing precedent. See al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. at 741. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment granting qualified immunity to the defendants on\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the Establish-\\nment Clause.\\n\\n\\n\\n53 Again, there is no question that Brother Doles Bey is the designated\\nrepresentative of the MSTA at the CIF. See supra note 9.\\n54As noted previously, see supra note 8, Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession of\\nsovereign-citizen beliefs is not at issue here.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 37\\n\\n 2.\\n As we already have noted, qualified immunity protects\\nthe defendants only against claims for damages; it does not\\nprotect the defendants against claims for injunctive relief. See\\nHannemann, 673 F.3d at 758. The district court failed to rec-\\nognize Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief and,\\ntherefore, never addressed the merits of those claims. On\\nappeal, the defendants, as well, have failed to address the\\nmerits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under\\nthe Establishment Clause. They simply maintain that\\nMr. Neely-Bey has waived or abandoned any claims for in-\\njunctive relief—a contention we already have rejected.\\n If the record contained any evidence that might support\\nthe granting of injunctive relief, we would vacate the district\\ncourt’s judgment in this respect and remand for further pro-\\nceedings. However, as our earlier discussion of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s Establishment Clause argument demon-\\nstrates, the record is entirely devoid of any evidence that\\nmight form the basis for such a claim. Consequently, the dis-\\ntrict court need not revisit the matter of injunctive relief on\\nremand.\\n Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages\\nunder the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. We also\\ndirect the district court to enter judgment for the defendants\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Es-\\ntablishment Clause. However, we remand the case to the\\ndistrict court for it to consider, in the first instance,\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Free\\n\\f38 No. 17-2980\\n\\nExercise Clause and under RLUIPA. In undertaking this\\ntask, the district court first should ensure that the controver-\\nsy has not become moot.\\n The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.\\n AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355574/\", \"author_raw\": \"Kenneth Francis Ripple\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578321/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-2980\nDERRICK D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nDANIEL L. CONLEY, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\n No. 1:15-cv-01522-WTL-DML — William T. Lawrence, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Derrick D. Neely-Bey Tarik-El filed\nthis action against various officials at the Correctional Indus-\ntrial Facility (“CIF”) in Pendleton, Indiana, and at the Indi-\nana Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). He alleged that\nthe defendants had prevented him from participating fully\nin the worship services of the Moorish Science Temple of\nAmerica (“MSTA”) held at the CIF, in violation of the Free\nExercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.\n\f2 No. 17-2980\n\nThe district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C.\n§ 1915A. It dismissed claims against Commissioner Bruce\nLemmon and Superintendent Wendy Knight on Eleventh\nAmendment grounds and against Officer David Liebel on\nthe ground that he had not participated personally in any of\nthe actions against Mr. Neely-Bey. The district court allowed\nthe damages claims against the remaining defendants to go\nforward. Following discovery, the remaining defendants\nmoved for summary judgment on qualified immunity\ngrounds. The district court granted the motion.\n Before us, Mr. Neely-Bey contends that the district court\nfailed to recognize that his complaint sought both damages\nand injunctive relief. He maintains that his injunctive relief\nclaims must be reinstated because they are unaffected by\nsovereign or qualified immunity. Moreover, he contends\nthat the district court erred in granting qualified immunity\nto the defendants on his damages claims.\n We conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified\nimmunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the\nFree Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause and,\ntherefore, affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to\nthose claims. We agree with Mr. Neely-Bey that the district\ncourt misread his complaint and that it clearly seeks injunc-\ntive relief as well as damages against the defendants. More-\nover, the district court should have read Mr. Neely-Bey’s pro\nse free exercise claim as seeking injunctive relief under the\nReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42\nU.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”). Consequently, we must\nremand so that the district court may consider whether in-\njunctive relief should be granted on the free exercise claim.\nIn addressing this matter, the district court first must deter-\n\fNo. 17-2980 3\n\nmine whether the free exercise claim and RLUIPA claims are\nmoot. If it determines that the claims are not moot, it should\nconsider whether injunctive relief is warranted. As a matter\nof law, there is no basis for injunctive relief on the estab-\nlishment clause claims, and we therefore direct the district\ncourt to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on those\nclaims.\n I\n BACKGROUND\n A.\n Until recently, Mr. Neely-Bey was incarcerated at CIF,\nwhere he was an active member of the MSTA congregation.\nThe MSTA is a national religious organization founded by\nProphet Noble Drew Ali. 1 Its most important group worship\nmeeting is held on Fridays and includes recitation of the\nMoorish American Prayer, during which each adherent\n“stands, [and] faces the East.” 2 After the prayer, a group\nleader reads the Divine Constitution, Bylaws, and verses\nfrom the Koran. Following the readings, the leader invites\nother participants to comment upon the readings. Finally,\nservices conclude with the “Warning from the Holy Proph-\net” followed by another recitation of the Moorish American\nPrayer.3 The MSTA also holds “Sunday School.” 4 During\n\n\n1 R.81 at 97.\n2 Id. at 98.\n3 Id.\n4It appears that, at some point, the MSTA group at CIF began meeting\non Mondays instead of Sundays. See id. at 78 (Memo from Chaplain\n (continued … )\n\f4 No. 17-2980\n\n2013 and 2014, Mr. Neely-Bey attended Friday Holy Day\nservices and Sunday school. The records of the MSTA reflect\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey regularly spoke at these meetings. 5\n In January 2013, Mr. Neely-Bey submitted an affidavit to\nIDOC Commissioner Lemmon. The cover letter stated that\nMr. Neely-Bey was providing the affidavit to Commission-\ner Lemmon “so that we may come to an understanding\n[that] this affidavit is [b]inding on you and you[r] office.” 6 It\nasserted that Mr. Neely-Bey was a “Sovereign Moorish Na-\ntional”; that he was not subject to the enactments of the\nUnited States Congress because he considered it to be a for-\neign power; and that he “squarely challenge[d] the fraudu-\nlent, usurping entanglement of JURISDICTION” over him. 7\nThe affidavit requested a hearing to establish the IDOC’s au-\nthority over Mr. Neely-Bey. As a result of the affidavit, the\nIDOC classified Mr. Neely-Bey as a “Sovereign Citizen,”\nwhich was designated as a “Security Threat Group.” 8\n\n\n( … continued)\nSmith setting forth how Mr. Neely-Bey may participate in “Monday\nmeetings”).\n5 See R.40; R.41; R.42.\n6 R.70-3 at 2.\n7 See id. at 3–4 (internal quotation marks omitted).\n8 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey claims that “the record does not support\nthat he subscribed to such ‘sovereign citizen’ beliefs or that he intended\nto associate himself with such beliefs by identifying himself as a ‘Sover-\neign Moorish National.’” Appellant’s Br. 9. However, there is no evi-\ndence in the record that Mr. Neely-Bey contested or grieved this designa-\ntion. Mr. Neely-Bey also does not maintain that sovereign citizens should\nnot be considered a Security Threat Group. Thus, neither\n (continued … )\n\fNo. 17-2980 5\n\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s affidavit made its way to Brother M.\nDoles Bey, 9 the MSTA minister who led the services at the\nCIF.10 On April 6, 2014, Brother Doles Bey sent a memoran-\ndum on MSTA letterhead to, among others, David Liebel,\nDirector of Religious and Volunteer Services Chaplains at\nthe CIF; Brother V. Jones-Bey, Minister of Institutional Mis-\nsion Affairs for the MSTA; and Mr. Neely-Bey. In his memo-\nrandum, Brother Doles Bey explained that sovereign citizens\ncould not be participating members of the MSTA. The memo\nrelated that, at another institution, the MSTA had allowed an\ninmate with a “Security Group Threat” designation to facili-\ntate a service, and as a result, the institution’s MSTA group\n“was shut down.” 11 Brother Doles Bey stated that\n\n( … continued)\nMr. Neely-Bey’s classification as a sovereign citizen, his designation as a\nmember of a Security Threat Group, nor the restrictions placed on Secu-\nrity Threat Groups are at issue in this appeal.\n9 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey repeatedly addresses Brother Doles Bey as a\n“volunteer minister,” suggesting that all of his ministry work is volun-\ntary and that he is not an official representative of the MSTA. The record\ndoes not bear this out. In his complaint, Mr. Neely-Bey identifies Brother\nDoles Bey as “the Minister & I.D.O.C. volunteer of the Moorish Science\nTemple of America.” R.1 at 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, according to\nIDOC policies, a volunteer like Brother Doles Bey must be “recognized\nby a religious body.” R.81 at 37.\n10 Mr. Neely-Bey alleges in his complaint that IDOC Commissioner\nLemmon forwarded the affidavit to the Director of Religious Services,\nDavid Liebel. R.1 at 3. Mr. Liebel presumably then passed it on to Broth-\ner Doles Bey, although there is not an allegation in the complaint to that\neffect. Neither party identifies any evidence in the record that establishes\nhow the affidavit reached Brother Doles Bey.\n11 R.81 at 71.\n\f6 No. 17-2980\n\nMr. Neely-Bey could attend services as a “guest,” but that he\ncould not teach or serve as a facilitator. 12\n On March 23, 2015, the Chaplain at the CIF, David Smith,\nsent a memo to Mr. Neely-Bey in which he stated that he\nhad “received [Mr. Neely-Bey’s] request to be added to the\nMST of A Religious Services group” and that he needed\nMr. Neely-Bey “to understand that by returning to this\ngroup you agree to fully cooperate with and follow the April\n6, 2014 sanctions placed on you by MST of A, Inc.” 13 Specifi-\ncally, Mr. Neely-Bey was forbidden from standing, speaking\nat, or facilitating any of the Friday services. He was allowed\nto speak when called upon during their Monday meetings;\nhowever, he could “not debate, instruct, dominate or speak\nagainst the teaching of the Prophet, the MST of A, Inc., or the\nU.S. Constitution.” 14\n In late summer 2015, Chaplain Smith filed a “Report of\nConduct” regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s actions during an\nMSTA meeting. Chaplain Smith stated that he had witnessed\nMr. Neely-Bey “speak and openly participate during the\nFriday MSTA Holy Day meeting” and that these actions\nwere in violation of the direct order that he had given to\nMr. Neely-Bey, orally and in writing. 15 Chaplain Smith con-\ncluded that Mr. Neely-Bey’s “actions … demonstrated his\n\n12 Id. at 72.\n13Id. at 78. The parties do not explain why Mr. Neely-Bey, who had been\nan active member of the MSTA in 2013 and 2014, had to request to be\nadded to the group in 2015.\n14 Id.\n15 Id. at 73.\n\fNo. 17-2980 7\n\nintention to interfere and disrupt MSTA services on Holy\nDays.” 16\n Officer Daniel Conley “screened” the conduct report,17\nand a hearing was held at Mr. Neely-Bey’s request. At the\nhearing, chaired by Officer Richard Sidwell, it was deter-\nmined that Mr. Neely-Bey had ignored an order by Chaplain\nSmith. Mr. Neely-Bey was given twenty hours of extra work\nto be completed in the next month. Although the determina-\ntion makes no mention of it, Mr. Neely-Bey testified at his\ndeposition, and the defendants conceded for purposes of\nsummary judgment, that Mr. Neely-Bey “was suspended\nfrom [MSTA] meetings for one year.”18\n Mr. Neely-Bey appealed to CIF Superintendent, Wendy\nKnight. He argued that the sanction merely enforced the\nMSTA’s ban on his participation in its services. Consequent-\nly, because “the State cannot get [in]volved in M.S.T. of A.\naffairs,” 19 the order could not be enforced. Mr. Neely-Bey’s\nappeal was denied. In her explanation, Superintendent\nKnight stated:\n\n\n\n16 Id.\n17 Again, the parties do not direct us to any place in the record contain-\ning a description of the screening function. In admissions produced in\nresponse to Mr. Neely-Bey’s requests, Officer Conley stated that he “had\nreservation[s] about the conduct report.” Id. at 22. Neither in the admis-\nsion, nor in any other place in the record, does Officer Conley explain the\nnature of his reservations.\n18 R.71 at 1.\n19 R.81 at 76.\n\f8 No. 17-2980\n\n You were charged with code 347 “Refusing to\n obey an order from staff” and you were found\n guilty by the DHB chairman.\n I find the Report of Conduct to be descriptive\n and credible, and the statement provided by\n staff within the body of the report did support\n the finding. When any staff member gives you\n an order, you need to follow it. After you have\n followed the staff member’s order, if you do\n not agree with that order or any order from\n staff, then you have a right to follow the de-\n partment’s grievance procedures. I find no er-\n rors in your case and the Report of Conduct is\n clear. You have provided me with no state-\n ments or evidence to cause me to change the\n decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer,\n therefore: your appeal is denied.[ 20]\n B.\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed this action in the district court\nagainst Commissioner Lemmon, Superintendent Knight, Di-\nrector of Religious Services David Liebel, Chaplain Smith,\nOfficer Conley, and Officer Sidwell. He alleged that he had\nbeen subjected to religious persecution when his affidavit\nwas forwarded to the MSTA, that the CIF had become en-\ntangled in a religious dispute by enforcing the memorandum\nof Brother Doles Bey, and that the CIF defendants had vio-\nlated his First Amendment right to free exercise when Broth-\ner Doles Bey’s memo was enforced. As a remedy,\n\n20 Id. at 77.\n\fNo. 17-2980 9\n\nMr. Neely-Bey requested “that [he] receive $750,000 dollars”\nand that the defendants “cease all action against [him].” 21\n The district court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 22 The court determined that any\nclaims for damages against Commissioner Lemmon and Su-\nperintendent Knight in their official capacities were barred\nby the Eleventh Amendment and therefore dismissed those\nclaims. It also dismissed the claims against Mr. Liebel be-\ncause he was not involved personally in the alleged depriva-\ntion. The court therefore instructed the clerk “to remove\nBruce Lemmon, Wendy Knight, and David Liebel from the\ndocket.” 23 The court allowed the damages claims against\nChaplain Smith, Officer Conley, and Officer Sidwell to pro-\nceed. The court’s screening order was silent with respect to\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider. 24 He argued\nthat the Eleventh Amendment did not bar his claims against\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight because\nthe claims were brought against the defendants in both their\n\n\n21 R.1 at 6.\n22 The district court initially dismissed Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, be-\nlieving that it was duplicative of another action that Mr. Neely-Bey had\nfiled. See R.8. Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider, pointing out\nthat the disciplinary action on which the present action is based is differ-\nent from the ones at issue in the earlier action. See R.10. The court grant-\ned the motion to reconsider and conducted a merits screening under 28\nU.S.C. § 1915A. See R.13.\n23 R.13 at 3.\n24 See R.17.\n\f10 No. 17-2980\n\nofficial capacities and their personal capacities.25\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue, however, that the district court\nshould reinstate his claims for injunctive relief because sov-\nereign immunity did not operate as a bar to injunctive relief.\nThe district court denied reconsideration “[f]or the reasons\nset forth in the screening entry.”26\n After discovery, the remaining defendants moved for\nsummary judgment. Relying on Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,\n530 U.S. 640 (2000), the defendants submitted that it was\nclearly established that the MSTA had a First Amendment\nright to choose its membership, and the sanction against\nMr. Neely-Bey simply implemented that right. According to\nthe defendants, “failure to enforce the MST of A memoran-\ndum would be the equivalent of forcing the MST of A to as-\nsociate with Neely-Bey as a member in violation of MST of\nA’s First Amendment rights.” 27 Moreover, once the MSTA\ndetermined that Mr. Neely-Bey could not participate in its\nservices, IDOC was “prohibited from reviewing or question-\ning [its] religious decisions.” 28\n The defendants also asserted that, if they had violated\nMr. Neely-Bey’s rights, they were entitled to qualified im-\nmunity. They noted that a “diligent search of Seventh Circuit\nand United States Supreme Court cases ha[d] yielded no\n\n25He also argued that his claim against Mr. Liebel should be reinstated.\nSee id. at 2.\n26 R.19.\n27 R.71 at 8.\n28Id. at 7 (citing Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v.\nEEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 186 (2012)).\n\fNo. 17-2980 11\n\ncases with closely analogous facts that would establish that\nPlaintiffs’ [sic] rights have been violated in this case.” 29\nTherefore, Mr. Neely-Bey had not met his burden of defeat-\ning the qualified immunity defense.\n In response, Mr. Neely-Bey maintained that IDOC’s en-\nforcement of the limitations set forth in MSTA’s memoran-\ndum violated the Establishment Clause and violated IDOC’s\nown policies. 30 Regarding the defendants’ claim that they\nwere enforcing MSTA’s associational rights, Mr. Neely-Bey\nbelieved that Dale was distinguishable because he was not\nasking to be appointed a leader of the MSTA, but only to\nparticipate fully in the services.\n Turning to the issue of qualified immunity,\nMr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that\nIDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex-\ncept when required by penological interests. Mr. Neely-Bey\nexplained that participating in the Friday services was a key\nelement of the MSTA faith, that Chaplain Smith understood\nthis, and that disciplining him for participating in the Friday\nservices constituted an unreasonable burden on his free ex-\nercise rights. He also claimed that the defendants had no le-\ngitimate penological interests in preventing his participation\nin Friday services. Turning specifically to Officers Conley\nand Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey noted that Officer Conley admit-\n\n\n29 Id. at 11.\n30 Mr. Neely-Bey specifically identified the policy providing that “[t]he\nDepartment does not endorse or recognize any particular denomination,\nsect, or faction as the ‘correct’ manner to practice a particular religion.”\nSee R.81 at 6.\n\f12 No. 17-2980\n\nted that he had reservations about Chaplain Smith’s conduct\nreport, but nevertheless screened the conduct report. As for\nOfficer Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that, at the time of\nthe disciplinary hearing, Officer Sidwell was aware that the\ndispute was of a religious as opposed to disciplinary nature.\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue that, even if the doctrine of\nqualified immunity protected the defendants from liability\nfor damages, his claims for injunctive relief nevertheless\ncould proceed.\n The district court granted summary judgment to the re-\nmaining defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. The\ncourt explained that, although “[t]he general principles of\nFirst Amendment law prohibiting officials from placing a\nsubstantial burden on the free exercise of religion by inmates\nare clearly established, … the qualified immunity defense\nturns on whether the application of those principles to the\ncircumstances faced by the defendants was clear at the\ntime.” 31 “Here,” the court explained, Mr. Neely-Bey could\nnot “prevail in his effort to overcome qualified immunity by\nrelying on general principles of First Amendment right[s]”\nbecause “[t]he Supreme Court has directed that ‘“clearly es-\ntablished” law is not to be defined at a high level of generali-\nty.’” 32 The court therefore entered judgment for the defend-\nants.\n\n\n\n\n31 R.84 at 7.\n32 Id. (quoting White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017)).\n\fNo. 17-2980 13\n\n II\n DISCUSSION\nA. Free Exercise\n 1. Claim for Damages\n Mr. Neely-Bey first submits that the district court erred\nin concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified\nimmunity for damages related to his free exercise claim. The\nprinciples governing this question are well-settled. Qualified\nimmunity shields government officials from civil “liability\n‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per-\nson would have known.’” Purvis v. Oest, 614 F.3d 713, 720\n(7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818\n(1982)). A qualified immunity determination comprises two\ninquiries; we must determine (1) “whether the plaintiff’s al-\nlegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right,”\nand (2) “whether the right was clearly established at the time\nof defendant’s alleged misconduct.” McAllister v. Price, 615\nF.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010). We are permitted to skip the\nfirst inquiry and proceed directly to the question whether a\nparticular right was clearly established. See, e.g., Whitlock v.\nBrown, 596 F.3d 406, 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pearson v. Cal-\nlahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). This is the approach that the dis-\ntrict court took, and the defendants urge that we affirm the\ndistrict court’s judgment on this basis.\n As we frequently have explained, a clearly established\nright is one that “is sufficiently clear that any reasonable of-\nficial would understand that his or her actions violate that\nright, meaning that existing precedent must have placed the\nstatutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Zim-\n\f14 No. 17-2980\n\nmerman v. Doran, 807 F.3d 178, 182 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015)). “[A] case directly\non point,” however, is not required. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). “The dispositive question is ‘whether\nthe violative nature of particular conduct is clearly estab-\nlished … .’” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (quoting al-Kidd, 563\nU.S. at 742). “This inquiry ‘“must be undertaken in light of the\nspecific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”’”\nId. (emphasis added) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.\n194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)).\n Here, the district court observed that there was no gov-\nerning law “directly establishing that the defendants’ con-\nduct in this case, where state officials enforced a ban from\nparticipating in religious activities that was put in place by\nthe religious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights\nunder the First Amendment.” 33 Mr. Neely-Bey believes,\nhowever, that the law “provided ‘fair warning’ to the de-\nfendants ‘that their alleged [conduct] was unconstitution-\nal.’” 34 According to Mr. Neely-Bey, the law was clearly es-\ntablished that a prison official cannot deny a prisoner’s free\nexercise rights based on the official’s understanding of the\ntenets of a particular faith. He relies principally on Grayson\nv. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012), and Vinning-El v. Ev-\nans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011), for this proposition.\n In Grayson, an inmate-adherent of the African Hebrew Is-\nraelites of Jerusalem was forced to cut off his dreadlocks “on\n\n\n33 R.84 at 7–8.\n34 Appellant’s Br. 35–36 (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866\n(2014) (per curiam)).\n\fNo. 17-2980 15\n\nthe ground that they posed a security risk.” 666 F.3d at 451.\nGrayson claimed that not cutting his hair was an element of\nhis faith; specifically, he informed prison officials that he had\ntaken “the Nazarite vow of separation,” which required him\nto refrain from cutting his hair. Id. at 454. The prison chap-\nlain denied Grayson’s request to grow out his hair because\nwearing dreadlocks was not a required element of the Afri-\ncan Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. The chaplain acknowl-\nedged that Rastafarians were allowed to have dreadlocks,\nbut distinguished their situation because having dreadlocks\nwas a requirement of their faith. On appeal, we observed\nthat Grayson’s act of not cutting his hair could have been a\nlegitimate aspect of his personal faith. We explained that\n“[p]rison authorities are always entitled to balance security\nconcerns against religious practices, and the need to do so\nmay be greater with regard to optional than to mandatory\npractices.” Id. at 455. Nevertheless,\n [p]rison chaplains may not determine which\n religious observances are permissible because\n orthodox. … No more can the prison permit\n Rastafarians to wear long hair and without jus-\n tification forbid a sincere African Hebrew Isra-\n elite of Jerusalem to do so, even if he is more\n zealous in his religious observances than his\n religion requires him to be.\nId.\n We reached a similar result in Vinning-El. Vinning-El in-\nvolved an MSTA inmate who asked for a vegan diet as a re-\nligious accommodation. The chaplain denied the request,\n“observing that the tenets of [the MSTA] require a non-pork\ndiet,” not a vegan one. 657 F.3d at 592. Vinning-El sued, and\n\f16 No. 17-2980\n\nthe district court denied the chaplain qualified immunity.\nOn appeal, we observed that the district court had not made\nany findings concerning the chaplain’s motivations in deny-\ning Vinning-El’s request. The chaplain could have denied\nthe request because he did not believe that a vegan diet was\na tenet of the MSTA faith, or he could have denied it because\nhe did not believe that the request was being made on reli-\ngious grounds. If the former, the chaplain was not entitled to\nqualified immunity because it was clearly established at the\ntime of the denial that “[a] personal religious faith is entitled\nto as much protection as one espoused by an organized\ngroup.” Id. at 593. However, if the latter, then the chaplain\nhad not violated the inmate’s rights because mere dietary\npreferences, unrelated to religious observances, need not be\naccommodated. Absent a determination as to the chaplain’s\nreasoning, we could not resolve the qualified immunity\nquestion and therefore remanded the case to the district\ncourt. See id. at 595.\n Neither Grayson nor Vinning-El speak to the circumstanc-\nes before us today. In both cases, the individual inmate re-\nquested that his religious belief be accommodated even\nthough that belief was arguably personal to him and more\ndemanding than the ones generally followed by adherents of\nthe religion with which he professed to be affiliated.\nMr. Neely-Bey presents a very different situation. He does\nnot ask the CIF to accommodate a personal belief not re-\nquired of MSTA adherents. Rather, he asks that the CIF re-\nquire the MSTA to accept him as a full member even though\nhis belief system as a declared sovereign citizen differs sub-\nstantially from that of the MSTA and MSTA liturgical prac-\ntices require that its adherents share their religious beliefs in\nthe course of their worship services. The MSTA consequent-\n\fNo. 17-2980 17\n\nly believes that admitting Mr. Neely-Bey as a member would\nchallenge its teachings and, possibly, jeopardize its status.\n This is the crux of the defendants’ position: They main-\ntain that, had they required the MSTA to allow Mr. Neely-\nBey to participate as a full member in Friday services, they\nwould have violated MSTA’s associational rights. See Boy\nScouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).\n In Dale, a former Eagle Scout “applied for adult member-\nship in the Boy Scouts” as an assistant scoutmaster. Id. at\n644. The BSA initially approved the application, but later re-\nvoked his membership after discovering that Dale was ho-\nmosexual and had taken public stances in favor of gay\nrights. According to the BSA, being a homosexual was anti-\nthetical to its mission. Dale then instituted a state-court ac-\ntion claiming that the BSA’s revocation of his membership\nviolated New Jersey’s law prohibiting discrimination in pub-\nlic accommodations. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed\nwith Dale and further held that requiring BSA to accept Dale\nas a scout leader did not violate BSA’s right to association\nunder the First Amendment.\n The Supreme Court reversed. It observed that “[t]he\nforced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes\nthe group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence\nof that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability\nto advocate public or private viewpoints.” Id. at 648. In as-\nsessing whether this was the case, the Court explained that\ndeference is owed to the group’s formulation of its “goals\nand philosophy,” as well as its “view of what would impair\nits expression.” Id. at 651, 653. Because the BSA believed that\nits principles precluded the practice of homosexuality and\nbecause “Dale’s presence in the [BSA] would … force the or-\n\f18 No. 17-2980\n\nganization to send a message … that [it] accepts homosexual\nconduct as a legitimate form of behavior,” “the forced inclu-\nsion of Dale would significantly affect its expression.” Id. at\n653, 656.\n Mr. Neely-Bey believes that the defendants’ reliance on\nDale is misplaced. Dale, he contends, was in a leadership\nrole, whereas he only was asking to participate as a member\nof the MSTA. The Court in Dale, however, did not limit its\ndiscussion to leaders of organizations, but instead asked\nwhether “[t]he forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a\ngroup infringes the group’s freedom of expressive associa-\ntion.” Id. at 648. Although the relative position of the indi-\nvidual in a group may bear on whether the group’s inclusion\nof the individual “affects in a significant way the group’s\nability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” id., the\nCourt spoke in terms of “membership” as well as leadership,\nsee id. at 654–56. Moreover, the record reflects that, as a full\nmember of the MSTA, Mr. Neely-Bey would be speaking to\nother members of the congregation and commenting on the\nwords of the Prophet and passages of the Koran. Requiring\nthe MSTA to allow an individual to speak at its worship ser-\nvices when that person holds beliefs antithetical to its own\nwould significantly affect its ability to preserve and pass on\nits message.\n Here, Chaplain Smith and the enforcement officers were\nrequired to balance the religious practices of one adherent\nagainst the rights of other inmates to exercise their religious\nbeliefs in accordance with MSTA teaching. Neither Grayson\nnor Vinning-El offers guidance for correctional officers who\nfind themselves in this dilemma. Indeed, there do not appear\nto be any cases that instruct prison officials on how they\n\fNo. 17-2980 19\n\nshould strike the appropriate balance between these compet-\ning interests. 35 As we have explained previously, “[p]ublic\nofficials can be held liable for violating clearly established\nlaw, but not for choosing sides on a debatable issue.” O’Keefe\nv. Chisholm, 769 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2014). The district\ncourt, therefore, did not err in granting the defendants quali-\nfied immunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s damages claims under\nthe Free Exercise Clause. 36\n 2. Claim for Injunctive Relief\n Mr. Neely-Bey next submits that, even if the district court\ncorrectly granted qualified immunity to the defendants on\nhis claim for damages, it failed to recognize that his com-\nplaint also stated a claim for injunctive relief under both the\nFree Exercise Clause and under RLUIPA. Moreover,\nMr. Neely-Bey continues, qualified immunity does not pro-\ntect the defendants from a claim for injunctive relief. See\nHannemann v. S. Door Cnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th\nCir. 2012). Consequently, he contends, a remand is necessary\n\n\n35 Indeed, Mr. Neely-Bey notes that “Defendants have cited no decision\nsuggesting the government can rely on a group’s associational interests\nto limit an individual’s participation in religious services, based solely on\nhis expression of allegedly unorthodox beliefs.” Appellant’s Br. 31. That\ncourts have not had to grapple with this difficult issue would seem to\ncounsel the application of qualified immunity.\n36 Notably, the defendants make only a passing reference to whether\nallowing Mr. Neely-Bey to participate as a full member of the religion\nwould jeopardize the security or rehabilitative concerns of the institu-\ntion. For reasons not at all clear to us, with the exception of this single,\noblique reference in its appellate brief, this contention, which may well\nhave merit, is never developed.\n\f20 No. 17-2980\n\nfor the district court to consider the merits of his claim for\ninjunctive relief.\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, among other relief, asks that\nthe defendants “cease all action against [him].” 37 When the\ndistrict court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint under 28\nU.S.C. § 1915A, it nevertheless acknowledged only that he\nwas “seek[ing] monetary relief”; the court made no mention\nof Mr. Neely-Bey’s prayer for injunctive relief. 38 Proceeding\non the assumption that Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims were for\nmonetary relief alone, the court dismissed the claims against\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight in their\nofficial capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and\ndirected that these defendants be removed from the docket.\nThe court allowed only the damages claims against Chaplain\nSmith and Officers Conley and Sidwell to go forward.\nMr. Neely-Bey moved for reconsideration of the screening\norder, but not on the ground that the district court had mis-\nread his complaint to include only claims for damages.\n a.\n Before us, the defendants at least tacitly acknowledge\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint requested injunctive relief. 39\nThey assert, however, that Mr. Neely-Bey abandoned his\nclaim for injunctive relief by not raising the issue in his mo-\n\n\n37 R.1 at 6.\n38 R.13 at 2.\n39 See Appellees’ Br. 28 (noting that the district court believed that\nMr. Neely-Bey was seeking only damages and acknowledging that “this\nassumption may have been a mistake”).\n\fNo. 17-2980 21\n\ntion to reconsider or in his response to the motion for sum-\nmary judgment.\n It is the general rule that a litigant does not abandon an\nargument by failing to raise it in a motion to reconsider.\nHamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 897 F.3d 835, 838\n(7th Cir. 2018) (“And it is never necessary to remonstrate\nwith a judge after an order has been entered. Motions for re-\nconsideration are discretionary, not obligatory.”). The de-\nfendants nevertheless submit that, “where a plaintiff is seek-\ning relief from judgment that is most appropriately awarded\nby a trial court on a Rule 60 motion, such as where the plain-\ntiff is claiming oversight, mistake or clerical error, the plain-\ntiff may waive his right to present that type of argument on\nappeal if he did not make the appropriate Rule 60 motion\nbelow.” Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 958–59 (7th Cir.\n2000). Here, they contend, the district court seems simply to\nhave misread or overlooked the full extent of\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims, and such an oversight falls neatly\nwithin the coverage of Rule 60(b)(1). 40 Consequently, the de-\nfendants submit that, because Mr. Neely-Bey failed to raise\nthe district court’s oversight in a Rule 60(b) motion, he can-\nnot now pursue his claim for injunctive relief.\n We do not believe that Denius compels this result. First,\nthe language on which the defendants rely was not part of\nour holding. After discussing what might be the effect of De-\n\n40 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides: “(b) Grounds for\nRelief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just\nterms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a fi-\nnal judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mis-\ntake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[] ….”\n\f22 No. 17-2980\n\nnius’s failure to file a Rule 60(b) motion if the court had over-\nlooked his claim for injunctive relief, we explained that this,\nin fact, had not occurred: “This is not a case where the dis-\ntrict court completely overlooked plaintiff’s claims for equi-\ntable relief.” Id. at 959. Rather, we observed, the district court\nvery clearly had disposed of both “Denius’s claims for mon-\netary and equitable relief through its summary judgment\nopinion.” Id. Thus, we did not have to decide whether Deni-\nus’s actions constituted waiver (or abandonment) because\nthe nature of the district court’s error did not fall within the\nlanguage of Rule 60(b).\n Additionally, our discussion in Denius focused on the ef-\nfect of failing to bring a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b), how-\never, governs motions that seek to “‘relieve a party or its le-\ngal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceed-\ning’ for the enumerated reasons.” Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc.,\n788 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.\n60(b)). The operative order here, however, was the district\ncourt’s screening order, which was interlocutory. See DaSilva\nv. Rymarkiewicz, 888 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 2018). It was in\nthat order that the court narrowed the scope of the action to\ninclude only claims for damages. When the defendants later\nmoved for summary judgment, they reasonably focused\ntheir motion on the claims for damages—the only ones still\nbefore the court. Mr. Neely-Bey’s response, as well, was di-\nrected to the claims for damages. There was no obvious way\nfor Mr. Neely-Bey to revisit the dismissed claims in the brief-\ning on the summary-judgment motion. Moreover, it was the\ndistrict court’s summary-judgment ruling that immediately\npreceded its entry of final judgment, the triggering event for\na Rule 60(b) motion. Under these circumstances,\nMr. Neely-Bey was not required to seek relief under Rule\n\fNo. 17-2980 23\n\n60(b) for the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his claims\nfor injunctive relief. Consequently, Mr. Neely-Bey has not\nwaived, or otherwise abandoned, his claim for injunctive re-\nlief under the Free Exercise Clause. 41\n\n\n\n\n41 Mr. Neely-Bey’s situation is readily distinguishable from the other\ncases on which the defendants rely. See Heiar v. Crawford Cnty, 746 F.2d\n1190, 1196 (7th Cir. 1984); Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d\n335 (5th Cir. 2015). In Heiar, we held that the defendants had waived\ntheir statute-of-limitations defense because, although included in the\nanswer, they never again raised it—in a dispositive, pretrial motion, as\nan item in the pretrial order, or in a motion for judgment at trial. See 746\nF.2d at 1196. Here, however, the district court eliminated the claim for\ninjunctive relief sua sponte, and there was no clear opportunity for\nMr. Neely-Bey to raise the issue again with the district court before the\nentry of final judgment. In Peterson, the plaintiff’s complaint had includ-\ned a prayer for “[a]ny further legal and equitable relief to which Peterson\nmay be justly entitled.” 806 F.3d at 339 (alteration in original). However,\nPeterson did not request specific injunctive relief until after a jury verdict\nin his favor. The district court granted the injunction, but the Fifth Cir-\ncuit reversed and vacated the injunction. The Fifth Circuit explained that\nthe defendant had been prejudiced by Peterson’s inaction because, had it\nknown that injunctive relief was at issue, it would have called additional\nwitnesses and presented evidence specifically directed to that claim for\nrelief. However, it had been deprived of that opportunity by the plain-\ntiff’s failure to raise the issue earlier. Here, the defendants include boil-\nerplate language that allowing Mr. Neely-Bey to renew his claim for in-\njunctive relief “would prejudice the defendants by inhibiting their ability\nto defend against Neely-Bey’s claims and substantially increase the de-\nfendants’ potential liability.” Appellees’ Br. 32. However, the defendants\ndo not explain how or why this is the case. Unlike the defendant in Peter-\nson, they have not lost their ability to present evidence in opposition to\nthis claim, and they do not explain how revival of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim\nfor injunctive relief might substantially increase their potential liability.\n\f24 No. 17-2980\n\n b.\n Waiver and abandonment are the only bases that the de-\nfendants have offered for affirming the district court’s dis-\nmissal of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief. Alt-\nhough “[w]e may affirm a district court’s dismissal order on\nany basis supported by the record,” Craig v. Rich Twp. High\nSch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013), we cannot\nconclude, on this limited record, that judgment in favor of\nthe defendants is warranted.\n To establish a free exercise claim, Mr. Neely-Bey “had to\nsubmit evidence from which a jury could reasonably find\nthat the defendants personally and unjustifiably placed a\nsubstantial burden on his religious practices.” Thompson v.\nHolm, 809 F.3d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Hernandez v.\nC.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989)). The Supreme Court has ex-\nplained that a substantial burden is one that “put[s] substan-\ntial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to\nviolate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 718\n(1981). In the prison context, such a burden is justified if it is\n“reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.”\nThompson, 809 F.3d at 380 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,\n89–91 (1987)).\n Here, Mr. Neely-Bey asserts, and the defendants do not\ncontest, that participation in Friday services, including\nstanding to pray and discussing the words of the Prophet,\nare central practices of the MSTA faith. The ban enforced by\nthe CIF prevents Mr. Neely-Bey from fully participating in\nthe Friday services. The question therefore is whether the\nban is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.\n\fNo. 17-2980 25\n\n Mr. Neely-Bey maintains that “the sole reason offered by\nDefendants for these restrictions was enforcement of a\nmemorandum from an outside MSTA volunteer minister.” 42\nAccording to Mr. Neely-Bey, “[i]t was, purely and simply, a\nreaction to perceived religious heresy,” and the defendants’\nenforcement of religious orthodoxy “is not a legitimate peno-\nlogical interest.” 43\n As we already have discussed, however, this statement\ndoes not fairly characterize the situation. Brother Doles Bey’s\nmemo simply does not request that the prison enforce any\nreligious doctrine. It does not ask the CIF, for instance, to\nserve MSTA adherents only porkless meals (a requirement\nof the faith) and to enforce that abstinence through disci-\npline. Instead, the memo simply requested that the CIF al-\nlow the MSTA to choose those who may speak authoritative-\nly on matters of faith. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Neely-Bey’s\nassertion, there is evidence in the record to establish that the\nCIF’s actions were motivated by a desire to protect the rights\nof other MSTA adherents at the CIF. The memorandum from\nBrother Doles Bey clearly articulates a concern that, if\nMr. Neely-Bey, a professed sovereign citizen, were allowed\nto speak at MSTA services, the congregation of worshippers\nmight be disbanded. It also refers to the need for the MSTA\nto conduct the Friday prayer services in accordance with the\nrequirements of its tradition. 44\n\n\n42 Appellant’s Br. 28.\n43 Id. at 28–29.\n44\n See R.81 at 72 (“The Acting Chairman presides over the[] meetings and\nmakes sure that the meeting is opened and closed according to the laws\n (continued … )\n\f26 No. 17-2980\n\n Although the term “penological interests” is most typi-\ncally articulated in terms of a penal institution’s interest in\nsecurity and financial stability, it is well-established that the\nterm also encompasses far wider concerns of just governance\nin the penal setting. See, e.g., Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530–\n32 (2006) (plurality opinion) (holding that encouraging pro-\ngress toward rehabilitation serves legitimate penological ob-\njectives); Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 364 (3d Cir. 2006) (not-\ning that “the health and safety of inmates … are legitimate\npenological interests”); Goodwin v. Turner, 908 F.2d 1395,\n1399–1400 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that treating male and fe-\nmale inmates equally furthered a legitimate penological in-\nterest). We have no doubt that the term also involves the\nprotection of the constitutional rights of other prisoners. In-\ndeed, prison officials are under a constitutional duty to pro-\ntect those rights. We therefore have no doubt that the prison\nofficials are on solid ground in maintaining that they have a\nright, and indeed an obligation, to protect the right of other\nprisoners who adhere to the MSTA faith to worship in a\ncongregational manner to the extent that such a practice is\nconsistent with other penal objectives.\n Of course, in asserting such an objective and in choosing\na means to achieve such an objective, Turner v. Safley, 482\nU.S. 78, 89–90 (1987), teaches that prison officials cannot rely\non the mere incantation of a penal interest but must come\nforward with record evidence that substantiates that the in-\n\n\n( … continued)\nand Customs of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. and sets\nthe tone for services to flow smoothly and without [sic] from the\nbody/membership; and guests.”).\n\fNo. 17-2980 27\n\nterest is truly at risk and that prison officials have chosen an\nappropriate manner to assert that interest. Before us, the de-\nfendants justify their actions only in terms of the MSTA’s\nrights without any reference to the possible impact on the\nsecurity, operations, or finances of the CIF. Under such cir-\ncumstances, we cannot conclude that the defendants have\narticulated a legitimate “penological” reason for denying\nMr. Neely-Bey full participation in MSTA’s Friday services. 45\n The merits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief\ntherefore remain an open question. In considering this ques-\ntion, the district court should not only determine the propri-\nety of injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause, but\npossible relief under RLUIPA. We have observed that, when\na pro se prisoner asserts a claim under the Free Exercise\nClause, the district court should interpret that constitutional\nclaim to include a statutory claim under RLUIPA. Grayson,\n666 F.3d at 451.46 RLUIPA prohibits prison officials from\n\n45 In writing the Report of Conduct, Chaplain Smith interpreted\nMr. Neely-Bey’s actions as intending to interfere with and disrupt MSTA\nservices on Holy Days. See R.81 at 73. Avoiding disruption of, and inter-\nference with, the meetings of authorized groups at the CIF is a legitimate\npenological interest. However, as already discussed, the defendants have\nnot argued that this was a consideration in the action they took against\nMr. Neely-Bey.\n46 Although damages are not available under RLUIPA, injunctive relief\nis. See Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, because\nsovereign immunity and qualified immunity protect government offi-\ncials only from damages suits, those doctrines cannot protect officials\nfrom claims for injunctive relief brought under RLUIPA. See Sorrentino v.\nGodinez, 777 F.3d 410, 415 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Sovereign immunity normally\ndoes not bar suits for injunctive relief in federal court alleging that a state\nofficial violated the federal constitution or laws.”); Hannemann v. S. Door\n (continued … )\n\f28 No. 17-2980\n\n“impos[ing] a substantial burden on the religious exercise”\nof an inmate “unless the government demonstrates that im-\nposition of the burden on that person … is the least restric-\ntive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental inter-\nest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Because RLUIPA “confers\ngreater religious rights on prisoners than the free exercise\nclause has been interpreted to do,” Grayson, 666 F.3d at 451,\nit is possible that Mr. Neely-Bey is entitled to statutory in-\njunctive relief even if he cannot establish a right to relief un-\nder the Free Exercise Clause.\n A word of caution. On remand, the district court first\nshould consider whether subsequent events have rendered\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. Prior to\noral argument, the defendants notified us that\nMr. Neely-Bey had been transferred from the CIF to the\nWestville Correctional Facility. At oral argument, counsel for\nthe defendants suggested that the transfer rendered\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. However,\nthere is no evidence in the record regarding how\nMr. Neely-Bey’s transfer will affect his ability to participate\nin MSTA worship. Moreover, we do not know the likelihood\nof Mr. Neely-Bey being transferred back to the CIF. See\nYoung v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 373–74 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting\nthat the likelihood of being transferred back to an institution\nis a factual determination for the district court). We leave it,\ntherefore, to the district court to determine on a more devel-\n\n\n( … continued)\nCnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he defense of quali-\nfied immunity does not protect defendants from an action for injunctive\nrelief.”).\n\fNo. 17-2980 29\n\noped record the effect of Mr. Neely-Bey’s transfer on his\nclaims for injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause\nand RLUIPA.\n In sum, we agree with the district court that the defend-\nants are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Neely-Bey’s\nclaims for damages under the Free Exercise Clause. Howev-\ner, the district court failed to consider Mr. Neely-Bey’s\nclaims for injunctive relief under either the Free Exercise\nClause or under RLUIPA. We therefore remand to the dis-\ntrict court for further consideration of these claims in the\nfirst instance, including the effect of any subsequent events\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\nB. Establishment Clause\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the district court erred\nin failing to address his Establishment Clause claim. He fur-\nther asserts that, had the district court considered the claim,\nit would have concluded that the defendants violated the\nEstablishment Clause in enforcing Brother Doles Bey’s pro-\nhibition against his full participation in MSTA meetings.\n Mr. Neely-Bey is correct that the district court’s order\ngranting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment did\nnot explicitly mention the Establishment Clause. However, it\ndid speak more broadly of whether the defendants’ actions\nhad violated Mr. Neely-Bey’s “rights under the First\nAmendment.” 47 It concluded that there was no controlling\nauthority “directly establishing that the defendants’ conduct\nin this case, where state officials enforced a ban from partici-\n\n\n47 R.84 at 8.\n\f30 No. 17-2980\n\npating in religious activities that was put in place by the re-\nligious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights under\nthe First Amendment.” 48 It therefore granted qualified im-\nmunity to the defendants. We turn, therefore, to the question\nwhether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim under the Establishment Clause.\n 1.\n Mr. Neely-Bey submits that, at the time Chaplain Smith\nlimited his participation in MSTA meetings, it was clear that\nsuch action violated the Establishment Clause. He begins by\nnoting that then, as now, “[a] government policy or practice\nviolates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular pur-\npose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or\n(3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.” Kauf-\nman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing\nLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971)). According to\nMr. Neely-Bey, the defendants’ actions violated all three\nprongs.\n First, he claims that there is no secular purpose for ban-\nning him from participating in MSTA Holy Day services. In-\nstead, he contends, the defendants’ “only reason for impos-\ning this restriction is a desire to enforce the religious di-\nrective of an outside volunteer minister, a directive that is\nbased entirely on religious orthodoxy.”49 We cannot accept\nthis submission. In determining whether a government ac-\ntion has a secular purpose, “a government’s characterization\nof its purpose is entitled to deference, although courts must\n\n48 Id. at 7–8.\n49 Appellant’s Br. 41.\n\fNo. 17-2980 31\n\nensure that the government’s characterization is sincere.”\nVision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 992 (7th Cir.\n2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Fairly read, the de-\nfendants have stated that their reason for giving effect to\nBrother Doles Bey’s memo was to protect the associational\nrights of the MSTA to choose, in the context of a religious\nworship ceremony, participants and leaders of the ob-\nservance. Chaplain Smith’s directive to Mr. Neely-Bey\nmakes this objective crystal clear. The directive explicitly\nrecognizes Mr. Neely-Bey “as a guest of MST of A,” who\ncould “listen,” but not instruct at MSTA meetings. 50 In pro-\ntecting the rights of the other prisoners, as was their obliga-\ntion, the defendants may have reinforced incidentally the\ntenets of that faith. There is no evidence in the record, how-\never, their actions were designed to produce such an effect. 51\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the primary effect of\nthe action is to advance the orthodoxy of the MSTA. He be-\nlieves that his situation mirrors the “pernicious fusion” of\nchurch and state that the Court condemned in Larkin v.\nGrendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), and Board of Education\n\n\n\n50 R.81 at 78.\n51 Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that he is being singled out because of\nhis religious beliefs. “The restriction imposed by Defendants,”\nMr. Neely-Bey explains, “which prohibits [him] from speaking or stand-\ning during Friday Holy Day services while others do so[,] is not based on\nany neutral or generally applicable rules about conduct or even member-\nship in religious groups or participation in religious services.” Appel-\nlant’s Br. 42. It is, however, based on a neutral rule—that religious asso-\nciations should be able to control their own leadership and membership.\n\f32 No. 17-2980\n\nof Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687\n(1994). 52\n In Larkin, a Massachusetts state law provided that estab-\nlishments “located within a radius of five hundred feet of a\nchurch or school shall not be licensed for the sale of alcoholic\nbeverages if the governing body of such church or school\nfile[d] [a] written objection” to the license. 459 U.S. at 117 (in-\nternal quotation marks omitted). The Court determined that\nthe statute resulted in an unconstitutional cessation of gov-\nernmental authority to a religious institution:\n Section 16C gives churches the right to deter-\n mine whether a particular applicant will be\n granted a liquor license, or even which one of\n several competing applicants will receive a li-\n cense.\n The churches’ power under the statute is\n standardless, calling for no reasons, findings,\n or reasoned conclusions. That power may\n therefore be used by churches to promote goals\n beyond insulating the church from undesirable\n neighbors; it could be employed for explicitly\n religious goals, for example, favoring liquor li-\n censes for members of that congregation or\n adherents of that faith.\nId. at 125. It therefore did “not strain” the Court’s “prior\nholdings to say that the statute can be seen as having a ‘pri-\nmary’ and ‘principal’ effect of advancing religion.” Id. at 126.\n\n\n52 Id. at 44.\n\fNo. 17-2980 33\n\n Similarly, in Kiryas Joel Village School District, a special\nstate law had created a school district, the lines of which\nwere the same as the lines of property owned by a Hasidic\nJewish congregation. The result was that the provision of\npublic educational services within a district had been\nawarded based on religious views and was completely con-\ntrolled by a religious body. The Court observed that the Free\nExercise and Establishment Clauses “‘compel[] the State to\npursue a course of “neutrality” toward religion,’ favoring\nneither one religion over others nor religious adherents col-\nlectively over nonadherents.” Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill.\nSch. Dist., 512 U.S. at 696 (quoting Comm. for Pub. Ed. & Reli-\ngious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 792–93 (1973)). The\nstatute at issue, the Court explained, “depart[ed] from this\nconstitutional command by delegating the State’s discretion-\nary authority over public schools to a group defined by its\ncharacter as a religious community, in a legal and historical\ncontext that gives no assurance that governmental power\nhas been or will be exercised neutrally.” Id.\n In both Larken and Kiryas Joel Village School District, there-\nfore, a formal enactment ceded a discretionary function of\ngovernance to a religious body. The CIF, however, has not\nceded disciplinary authority to the MSTA. The CIF has not\ngiven the MSTA the power to discipline an MSTA member\nif, for instance, the member fails to attend Friday services.\nInstead, the MSTA asked the CIF defendants to protect its\nright to control the religious content of the MSTA’s own\nmeetings by determining who may or may not teach its con-\ngregants. Here, a religious entity has not been given carte\nblanche to administer a government program or bestow a\ngovernment benefit as it sees fit.\n\f34 No. 17-2980\n\n Finally, Mr. Neely-Bey submits that the CIF’s enforce-\nment of Brother Doles Bey’s memo violates the entangle-\nment prong of the Lemon test. To establish excessive entan-\nglement with religion, Mr. Neely-Bey has to “demonstrate\n‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of\nthe sovereign in religious activity.’” Vision Church, 468 F.3d\nat 995 (quoting Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equaliza-\ntion of California, 493 U.S. 378, 393 (1990)). “The general rule\nis that, to constitute excessive entanglement, the government\naction must involve ‘intrusive government participation in,\nsupervision of, or inquiry into religious affairs.’” Id. (quoting\nUnited States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 631\n(7th Cir. 2000)).\n Mr. Neely-Bey does not address these standards or sug-\ngest how the evidence in the record establishes the level of\nintrusiveness required for entanglement. Instead, he submits\nthat Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009), necessitates\nsuch a finding of entanglement.\n In Nelson, an Illinois inmate had requested a meatless di-\net on Fridays as an act of penance in accordance with his\nCatholic faith. The correctional facility’s chaplain, Miller, re-\nviewed the request, “cross-checking the inmate’s declared\nreligious affiliation to determine if a religious diet was re-\nquired”; specifically, he “looked for confirmation of the reli-\ngious dietary tenet ‘on paper’—that is, he looked for confir-\nmation of the requirement in some ‘church document’—as\nopposed to inquiring regarding the spiritual goals of the in-\nmate.” Id. at 872. The prison chaplain denied the request,\nand, in his denial, he “cited several Bible passages purport-\nedly contradicting Nelson’s beliefs regarding penance.” Id. at\n\fNo. 17-2980 35\n\n881. Eventually, at the direction of the warden, Nelson re-\nceived a vegan diet.\n Nelson filed an action against Miller and several other\nadministrators at the correctional facility, alleging, among\nother claims, a violation of the Establishment Clause. Specif-\nically, Nelson alleged that Miller had “favored Muslim and\nAfrican Hebrew Israelite prisoners by approving vegan diets\nfor those prisoners without obtaining written verification\nthat such diets were required by their religions.” Id. at 880–\n81. The district court, however, “found that Nelson had not\nproven a violation of the establishment clause because there\nwere valid neutral reasons for Miller’s actions in this re-\ngard.” Id. at 881. On appeal, we agreed with the district\ncourt. We explained that the correctional facility’s regula-\ntions\n provided that prisoners could abstain from\n “any foods the consumption of which violates\n their required religious tenets” and the district\n court concluded that Miller had required doc-\n umentation because he was unfamiliar with\n any Catholic “required religious tenet” which\n necessitated a non-meat diet. Under the district\n court’s reasoning, Miller did not ask Muslim\n and African Hebrew Israelite prisoners to\n submit verification because he understood\n from his experience that a limited diet was part\n of many of these prisoners’ religious practice.\nId.\n Nevertheless, we observed, Miller’s denial, which “cited\nseveral Bible passages purportedly contradicting Nelson’s\n\f36 No. 17-2980\n\nbeliefs regarding penance, improperly entangled [Miller] in\nmatters of religious interpretation. It simply [wa]s not ap-\npropriate for a prison official to argue with a prisoner re-\ngarding the objective truth of a prisoner’s religious belief.”\nId.\n We fail to see Nelson’s application to the circumstances\nhere. Chaplain Smith did not undertake his own review of\nMSTA doctrine. Rather, he was told by the MSTA minister at\nthe CIF, Brother Doles Bey, 53 that Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession\nof sovereign citizenship 54 precluded him from full member-\nship and participation in the MSTA. This tension between\nthe tenets of the MSTA and the sovereign-citizen movement\nis well documented in our case law. See Bey v. State, 847 F.3d\n559, 560–61 (7th Cir. 2017). Chaplain Smith accepted the\nstatement of the MSTA representative; he made no commen-\ntary at all concerning the “objective truth” of\nMr. Neely-Bey’s beliefs. He simply forbade him from dis-\nrupting the MSTA service.\n In sum, at the very least, Chaplain Smith did not act in a\nmanner inconsistent with existing precedent. See al-Kidd, 563\nU.S. at 741. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s\njudgment granting qualified immunity to the defendants on\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the Establish-\nment Clause.\n\n\n\n53 Again, there is no question that Brother Doles Bey is the designated\nrepresentative of the MSTA at the CIF. See supra note 9.\n54As noted previously, see supra note 8, Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession of\nsovereign-citizen beliefs is not at issue here.\n\fNo. 17-2980 37\n\n 2.\n As we already have noted, qualified immunity protects\nthe defendants only against claims for damages; it does not\nprotect the defendants against claims for injunctive relief. See\nHannemann, 673 F.3d at 758. The district court failed to rec-\nognize Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief and,\ntherefore, never addressed the merits of those claims. On\nappeal, the defendants, as well, have failed to address the\nmerits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under\nthe Establishment Clause. They simply maintain that\nMr. Neely-Bey has waived or abandoned any claims for in-\njunctive relief—a contention we already have rejected.\n If the record contained any evidence that might support\nthe granting of injunctive relief, we would vacate the district\ncourt’s judgment in this respect and remand for further pro-\nceedings. However, as our earlier discussion of\nMr. Neely-Bey’s Establishment Clause argument demon-\nstrates, the record is entirely devoid of any evidence that\nmight form the basis for such a claim. Consequently, the dis-\ntrict court need not revisit the matter of injunctive relief on\nremand.\n Conclusion\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s\njudgment regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages\nunder the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. We also\ndirect the district court to enter judgment for the defendants\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Es-\ntablishment Clause. However, we remand the case to the\ndistrict court for it to consider, in the first instance,\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Free\n\f38 No. 17-2980\n\nExercise Clause and under RLUIPA. In undertaking this\ntask, the district court first should ensure that the controver-\nsy has not become moot.\n The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.\n AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 17-2980\\nDERRICK D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nDANIEL L. CONLEY, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.\\n No. 1:15-cv-01522-WTL-DML — William T. Lawrence, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Derrick D. Neely-Bey Tarik-El filed\\nthis action against various officials at the Correctional Indus-\\ntrial Facility (“CIF”) in Pendleton, Indiana, and at the Indi-\\nana Department of Corrections (“IDOC”). He alleged that\\nthe defendants had prevented him from participating fully\\nin the worship services of the Moorish Science Temple of\\nAmerica (“MSTA”) held at the CIF, in violation of the Free\\nExercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.\\n\\f2 No. 17-2980\\n\\nThe district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C.\\n§ 1915A. It dismissed claims against Commissioner Bruce\\nLemmon and Superintendent Wendy Knight on Eleventh\\nAmendment grounds and against Officer David Liebel on\\nthe ground that he had not participated personally in any of\\nthe actions against Mr. Neely-Bey. The district court allowed\\nthe damages claims against the remaining defendants to go\\nforward. Following discovery, the remaining defendants\\nmoved for summary judgment on qualified immunity\\ngrounds. The district court granted the motion.\\n Before us, Mr. Neely-Bey contends that the district court\\nfailed to recognize that his complaint sought both damages\\nand injunctive relief. He maintains that his injunctive relief\\nclaims must be reinstated because they are unaffected by\\nsovereign or qualified immunity. Moreover, he contends\\nthat the district court erred in granting qualified immunity\\nto the defendants on his damages claims.\\n We conclude that the defendants are entitled to qualified\\nimmunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the\\nFree Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause and,\\ntherefore, affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to\\nthose claims. We agree with Mr. Neely-Bey that the district\\ncourt misread his complaint and that it clearly seeks injunc-\\ntive relief as well as damages against the defendants. More-\\nover, the district court should have read Mr. Neely-Bey’s pro\\nse free exercise claim as seeking injunctive relief under the\\nReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42\\nU.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”). Consequently, we must\\nremand so that the district court may consider whether in-\\njunctive relief should be granted on the free exercise claim.\\nIn addressing this matter, the district court first must deter-\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 3\\n\\nmine whether the free exercise claim and RLUIPA claims are\\nmoot. If it determines that the claims are not moot, it should\\nconsider whether injunctive relief is warranted. As a matter\\nof law, there is no basis for injunctive relief on the estab-\\nlishment clause claims, and we therefore direct the district\\ncourt to enter judgment in favor of the defendants on those\\nclaims.\\n I\\n BACKGROUND\\n A.\\n Until recently, Mr. Neely-Bey was incarcerated at CIF,\\nwhere he was an active member of the MSTA congregation.\\nThe MSTA is a national religious organization founded by\\nProphet Noble Drew Ali. 1 Its most important group worship\\nmeeting is held on Fridays and includes recitation of the\\nMoorish American Prayer, during which each adherent\\n“stands, [and] faces the East.” 2 After the prayer, a group\\nleader reads the Divine Constitution, Bylaws, and verses\\nfrom the Koran. Following the readings, the leader invites\\nother participants to comment upon the readings. Finally,\\nservices conclude with the “Warning from the Holy Proph-\\net” followed by another recitation of the Moorish American\\nPrayer.3 The MSTA also holds “Sunday School.” 4 During\\n\\n\\n1 R.81 at 97.\\n2 Id. at 98.\\n3 Id.\\n4It appears that, at some point, the MSTA group at CIF began meeting\\non Mondays instead of Sundays. See id. at 78 (Memo from Chaplain\\n (continued … )\\n\\f4 No. 17-2980\\n\\n2013 and 2014, Mr. Neely-Bey attended Friday Holy Day\\nservices and Sunday school. The records of the MSTA reflect\\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey regularly spoke at these meetings. 5\\n In January 2013, Mr. Neely-Bey submitted an affidavit to\\nIDOC Commissioner Lemmon. The cover letter stated that\\nMr. Neely-Bey was providing the affidavit to Commission-\\ner Lemmon “so that we may come to an understanding\\n[that] this affidavit is [b]inding on you and you[r] office.” 6 It\\nasserted that Mr. Neely-Bey was a “Sovereign Moorish Na-\\ntional”; that he was not subject to the enactments of the\\nUnited States Congress because he considered it to be a for-\\neign power; and that he “squarely challenge[d] the fraudu-\\nlent, usurping entanglement of JURISDICTION” over him. 7\\nThe affidavit requested a hearing to establish the IDOC’s au-\\nthority over Mr. Neely-Bey. As a result of the affidavit, the\\nIDOC classified Mr. Neely-Bey as a “Sovereign Citizen,”\\nwhich was designated as a “Security Threat Group.” 8\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nSmith setting forth how Mr. Neely-Bey may participate in “Monday\\nmeetings”).\\n5 See R.40; R.41; R.42.\\n6 R.70-3 at 2.\\n7 See id. at 3–4 (internal quotation marks omitted).\\n8 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey claims that “the record does not support\\nthat he subscribed to such ‘sovereign citizen’ beliefs or that he intended\\nto associate himself with such beliefs by identifying himself as a ‘Sover-\\neign Moorish National.’” Appellant’s Br. 9. However, there is no evi-\\ndence in the record that Mr. Neely-Bey contested or grieved this designa-\\ntion. Mr. Neely-Bey also does not maintain that sovereign citizens should\\nnot be considered a Security Threat Group. Thus, neither\\n (continued … )\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 5\\n\\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s affidavit made its way to Brother M.\\nDoles Bey, 9 the MSTA minister who led the services at the\\nCIF.10 On April 6, 2014, Brother Doles Bey sent a memoran-\\ndum on MSTA letterhead to, among others, David Liebel,\\nDirector of Religious and Volunteer Services Chaplains at\\nthe CIF; Brother V. Jones-Bey, Minister of Institutional Mis-\\nsion Affairs for the MSTA; and Mr. Neely-Bey. In his memo-\\nrandum, Brother Doles Bey explained that sovereign citizens\\ncould not be participating members of the MSTA. The memo\\nrelated that, at another institution, the MSTA had allowed an\\ninmate with a “Security Group Threat” designation to facili-\\ntate a service, and as a result, the institution’s MSTA group\\n“was shut down.” 11 Brother Doles Bey stated that\\n\\n( … continued)\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s classification as a sovereign citizen, his designation as a\\nmember of a Security Threat Group, nor the restrictions placed on Secu-\\nrity Threat Groups are at issue in this appeal.\\n9 In his brief, Mr. Neely-Bey repeatedly addresses Brother Doles Bey as a\\n“volunteer minister,” suggesting that all of his ministry work is volun-\\ntary and that he is not an official representative of the MSTA. The record\\ndoes not bear this out. In his complaint, Mr. Neely-Bey identifies Brother\\nDoles Bey as “the Minister & I.D.O.C. volunteer of the Moorish Science\\nTemple of America.” R.1 at 4 (emphasis added). Moreover, according to\\nIDOC policies, a volunteer like Brother Doles Bey must be “recognized\\nby a religious body.” R.81 at 37.\\n10 Mr. Neely-Bey alleges in his complaint that IDOC Commissioner\\nLemmon forwarded the affidavit to the Director of Religious Services,\\nDavid Liebel. R.1 at 3. Mr. Liebel presumably then passed it on to Broth-\\ner Doles Bey, although there is not an allegation in the complaint to that\\neffect. Neither party identifies any evidence in the record that establishes\\nhow the affidavit reached Brother Doles Bey.\\n11 R.81 at 71.\\n\\f6 No. 17-2980\\n\\nMr. Neely-Bey could attend services as a “guest,” but that he\\ncould not teach or serve as a facilitator. 12\\n On March 23, 2015, the Chaplain at the CIF, David Smith,\\nsent a memo to Mr. Neely-Bey in which he stated that he\\nhad “received [Mr. Neely-Bey’s] request to be added to the\\nMST of A Religious Services group” and that he needed\\nMr. Neely-Bey “to understand that by returning to this\\ngroup you agree to fully cooperate with and follow the April\\n6, 2014 sanctions placed on you by MST of A, Inc.” 13 Specifi-\\ncally, Mr. Neely-Bey was forbidden from standing, speaking\\nat, or facilitating any of the Friday services. He was allowed\\nto speak when called upon during their Monday meetings;\\nhowever, he could “not debate, instruct, dominate or speak\\nagainst the teaching of the Prophet, the MST of A, Inc., or the\\nU.S. Constitution.” 14\\n In late summer 2015, Chaplain Smith filed a “Report of\\nConduct” regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s actions during an\\nMSTA meeting. Chaplain Smith stated that he had witnessed\\nMr. Neely-Bey “speak and openly participate during the\\nFriday MSTA Holy Day meeting” and that these actions\\nwere in violation of the direct order that he had given to\\nMr. Neely-Bey, orally and in writing. 15 Chaplain Smith con-\\ncluded that Mr. Neely-Bey’s “actions … demonstrated his\\n\\n12 Id. at 72.\\n13Id. at 78. The parties do not explain why Mr. Neely-Bey, who had been\\nan active member of the MSTA in 2013 and 2014, had to request to be\\nadded to the group in 2015.\\n14 Id.\\n15 Id. at 73.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 7\\n\\nintention to interfere and disrupt MSTA services on Holy\\nDays.” 16\\n Officer Daniel Conley “screened” the conduct report,17\\nand a hearing was held at Mr. Neely-Bey’s request. At the\\nhearing, chaired by Officer Richard Sidwell, it was deter-\\nmined that Mr. Neely-Bey had ignored an order by Chaplain\\nSmith. Mr. Neely-Bey was given twenty hours of extra work\\nto be completed in the next month. Although the determina-\\ntion makes no mention of it, Mr. Neely-Bey testified at his\\ndeposition, and the defendants conceded for purposes of\\nsummary judgment, that Mr. Neely-Bey “was suspended\\nfrom [MSTA] meetings for one year.”18\\n Mr. Neely-Bey appealed to CIF Superintendent, Wendy\\nKnight. He argued that the sanction merely enforced the\\nMSTA’s ban on his participation in its services. Consequent-\\nly, because “the State cannot get [in]volved in M.S.T. of A.\\naffairs,” 19 the order could not be enforced. Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nappeal was denied. In her explanation, Superintendent\\nKnight stated:\\n\\n\\n\\n16 Id.\\n17 Again, the parties do not direct us to any place in the record contain-\\ning a description of the screening function. In admissions produced in\\nresponse to Mr. Neely-Bey’s requests, Officer Conley stated that he “had\\nreservation[s] about the conduct report.” Id. at 22. Neither in the admis-\\nsion, nor in any other place in the record, does Officer Conley explain the\\nnature of his reservations.\\n18 R.71 at 1.\\n19 R.81 at 76.\\n\\f8 No. 17-2980\\n\\n You were charged with code 347 “Refusing to\\n obey an order from staff” and you were found\\n guilty by the DHB chairman.\\n I find the Report of Conduct to be descriptive\\n and credible, and the statement provided by\\n staff within the body of the report did support\\n the finding. When any staff member gives you\\n an order, you need to follow it. After you have\\n followed the staff member’s order, if you do\\n not agree with that order or any order from\\n staff, then you have a right to follow the de-\\n partment’s grievance procedures. I find no er-\\n rors in your case and the Report of Conduct is\\n clear. You have provided me with no state-\\n ments or evidence to cause me to change the\\n decision of the Disciplinary Hearing Officer,\\n therefore: your appeal is denied.[ 20]\\n B.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed this action in the district court\\nagainst Commissioner Lemmon, Superintendent Knight, Di-\\nrector of Religious Services David Liebel, Chaplain Smith,\\nOfficer Conley, and Officer Sidwell. He alleged that he had\\nbeen subjected to religious persecution when his affidavit\\nwas forwarded to the MSTA, that the CIF had become en-\\ntangled in a religious dispute by enforcing the memorandum\\nof Brother Doles Bey, and that the CIF defendants had vio-\\nlated his First Amendment right to free exercise when Broth-\\ner Doles Bey’s memo was enforced. As a remedy,\\n\\n20 Id. at 77.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 9\\n\\nMr. Neely-Bey requested “that [he] receive $750,000 dollars”\\nand that the defendants “cease all action against [him].” 21\\n The district court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint\\nunder 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 22 The court determined that any\\nclaims for damages against Commissioner Lemmon and Su-\\nperintendent Knight in their official capacities were barred\\nby the Eleventh Amendment and therefore dismissed those\\nclaims. It also dismissed the claims against Mr. Liebel be-\\ncause he was not involved personally in the alleged depriva-\\ntion. The court therefore instructed the clerk “to remove\\nBruce Lemmon, Wendy Knight, and David Liebel from the\\ndocket.” 23 The court allowed the damages claims against\\nChaplain Smith, Officer Conley, and Officer Sidwell to pro-\\nceed. The court’s screening order was silent with respect to\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider. 24 He argued\\nthat the Eleventh Amendment did not bar his claims against\\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight because\\nthe claims were brought against the defendants in both their\\n\\n\\n21 R.1 at 6.\\n22 The district court initially dismissed Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, be-\\nlieving that it was duplicative of another action that Mr. Neely-Bey had\\nfiled. See R.8. Mr. Neely-Bey filed a motion to reconsider, pointing out\\nthat the disciplinary action on which the present action is based is differ-\\nent from the ones at issue in the earlier action. See R.10. The court grant-\\ned the motion to reconsider and conducted a merits screening under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1915A. See R.13.\\n23 R.13 at 3.\\n24 See R.17.\\n\\f10 No. 17-2980\\n\\nofficial capacities and their personal capacities.25\\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue, however, that the district court\\nshould reinstate his claims for injunctive relief because sov-\\nereign immunity did not operate as a bar to injunctive relief.\\nThe district court denied reconsideration “[f]or the reasons\\nset forth in the screening entry.”26\\n After discovery, the remaining defendants moved for\\nsummary judgment. Relying on Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,\\n530 U.S. 640 (2000), the defendants submitted that it was\\nclearly established that the MSTA had a First Amendment\\nright to choose its membership, and the sanction against\\nMr. Neely-Bey simply implemented that right. According to\\nthe defendants, “failure to enforce the MST of A memoran-\\ndum would be the equivalent of forcing the MST of A to as-\\nsociate with Neely-Bey as a member in violation of MST of\\nA’s First Amendment rights.” 27 Moreover, once the MSTA\\ndetermined that Mr. Neely-Bey could not participate in its\\nservices, IDOC was “prohibited from reviewing or question-\\ning [its] religious decisions.” 28\\n The defendants also asserted that, if they had violated\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s rights, they were entitled to qualified im-\\nmunity. They noted that a “diligent search of Seventh Circuit\\nand United States Supreme Court cases ha[d] yielded no\\n\\n25He also argued that his claim against Mr. Liebel should be reinstated.\\nSee id. at 2.\\n26 R.19.\\n27 R.71 at 8.\\n28Id. at 7 (citing Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v.\\nEEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 186 (2012)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 11\\n\\ncases with closely analogous facts that would establish that\\nPlaintiffs’ [sic] rights have been violated in this case.” 29\\nTherefore, Mr. Neely-Bey had not met his burden of defeat-\\ning the qualified immunity defense.\\n In response, Mr. Neely-Bey maintained that IDOC’s en-\\nforcement of the limitations set forth in MSTA’s memoran-\\ndum violated the Establishment Clause and violated IDOC’s\\nown policies. 30 Regarding the defendants’ claim that they\\nwere enforcing MSTA’s associational rights, Mr. Neely-Bey\\nbelieved that Dale was distinguishable because he was not\\nasking to be appointed a leader of the MSTA, but only to\\nparticipate fully in the services.\\n Turning to the issue of qualified immunity,\\nMr. Neely-Bey asserted that it was clearly established that\\nIDOC could not restrict his right to practice his religion ex-\\ncept when required by penological interests. Mr. Neely-Bey\\nexplained that participating in the Friday services was a key\\nelement of the MSTA faith, that Chaplain Smith understood\\nthis, and that disciplining him for participating in the Friday\\nservices constituted an unreasonable burden on his free ex-\\nercise rights. He also claimed that the defendants had no le-\\ngitimate penological interests in preventing his participation\\nin Friday services. Turning specifically to Officers Conley\\nand Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey noted that Officer Conley admit-\\n\\n\\n29 Id. at 11.\\n30 Mr. Neely-Bey specifically identified the policy providing that “[t]he\\nDepartment does not endorse or recognize any particular denomination,\\nsect, or faction as the ‘correct’ manner to practice a particular religion.”\\nSee R.81 at 6.\\n\\f12 No. 17-2980\\n\\nted that he had reservations about Chaplain Smith’s conduct\\nreport, but nevertheless screened the conduct report. As for\\nOfficer Sidwell, Mr. Neely-Bey asserted that, at the time of\\nthe disciplinary hearing, Officer Sidwell was aware that the\\ndispute was of a religious as opposed to disciplinary nature.\\nMr. Neely-Bey did not argue that, even if the doctrine of\\nqualified immunity protected the defendants from liability\\nfor damages, his claims for injunctive relief nevertheless\\ncould proceed.\\n The district court granted summary judgment to the re-\\nmaining defendants on the basis of qualified immunity. The\\ncourt explained that, although “[t]he general principles of\\nFirst Amendment law prohibiting officials from placing a\\nsubstantial burden on the free exercise of religion by inmates\\nare clearly established, … the qualified immunity defense\\nturns on whether the application of those principles to the\\ncircumstances faced by the defendants was clear at the\\ntime.” 31 “Here,” the court explained, Mr. Neely-Bey could\\nnot “prevail in his effort to overcome qualified immunity by\\nrelying on general principles of First Amendment right[s]”\\nbecause “[t]he Supreme Court has directed that ‘“clearly es-\\ntablished” law is not to be defined at a high level of generali-\\nty.’” 32 The court therefore entered judgment for the defend-\\nants.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n31 R.84 at 7.\\n32 Id. (quoting White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548, 552 (2017)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 13\\n\\n II\\n DISCUSSION\\nA. Free Exercise\\n 1. Claim for Damages\\n Mr. Neely-Bey first submits that the district court erred\\nin concluding that the defendants were entitled to qualified\\nimmunity for damages related to his free exercise claim. The\\nprinciples governing this question are well-settled. Qualified\\nimmunity shields government officials from civil “liability\\n‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established\\nstatutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable per-\\nson would have known.’” Purvis v. Oest, 614 F.3d 713, 720\\n(7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818\\n(1982)). A qualified immunity determination comprises two\\ninquiries; we must determine (1) “whether the plaintiff’s al-\\nlegations make out a deprivation of a constitutional right,”\\nand (2) “whether the right was clearly established at the time\\nof defendant’s alleged misconduct.” McAllister v. Price, 615\\nF.3d 877, 881 (7th Cir. 2010). We are permitted to skip the\\nfirst inquiry and proceed directly to the question whether a\\nparticular right was clearly established. See, e.g., Whitlock v.\\nBrown, 596 F.3d 406, 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Pearson v. Cal-\\nlahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). This is the approach that the dis-\\ntrict court took, and the defendants urge that we affirm the\\ndistrict court’s judgment on this basis.\\n As we frequently have explained, a clearly established\\nright is one that “is sufficiently clear that any reasonable of-\\nficial would understand that his or her actions violate that\\nright, meaning that existing precedent must have placed the\\nstatutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Zim-\\n\\f14 No. 17-2980\\n\\nmerman v. Doran, 807 F.3d 178, 182 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing\\nMullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305, 308 (2015)). “[A] case directly\\non point,” however, is not required. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. 731, 741 (2011). “The dispositive question is ‘whether\\nthe violative nature of particular conduct is clearly estab-\\nlished … .’” Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308 (quoting al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. at 742). “This inquiry ‘“must be undertaken in light of the\\nspecific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.”’”\\nId. (emphasis added) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S.\\n194, 198 (2004) (per curiam)).\\n Here, the district court observed that there was no gov-\\nerning law “directly establishing that the defendants’ con-\\nduct in this case, where state officials enforced a ban from\\nparticipating in religious activities that was put in place by\\nthe religious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights\\nunder the First Amendment.” 33 Mr. Neely-Bey believes,\\nhowever, that the law “provided ‘fair warning’ to the de-\\nfendants ‘that their alleged [conduct] was unconstitution-\\nal.’” 34 According to Mr. Neely-Bey, the law was clearly es-\\ntablished that a prison official cannot deny a prisoner’s free\\nexercise rights based on the official’s understanding of the\\ntenets of a particular faith. He relies principally on Grayson\\nv. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450 (7th Cir. 2012), and Vinning-El v. Ev-\\nans, 657 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2011), for this proposition.\\n In Grayson, an inmate-adherent of the African Hebrew Is-\\nraelites of Jerusalem was forced to cut off his dreadlocks “on\\n\\n\\n33 R.84 at 7–8.\\n34 Appellant’s Br. 35–36 (quoting Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1866\\n(2014) (per curiam)).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 15\\n\\nthe ground that they posed a security risk.” 666 F.3d at 451.\\nGrayson claimed that not cutting his hair was an element of\\nhis faith; specifically, he informed prison officials that he had\\ntaken “the Nazarite vow of separation,” which required him\\nto refrain from cutting his hair. Id. at 454. The prison chap-\\nlain denied Grayson’s request to grow out his hair because\\nwearing dreadlocks was not a required element of the Afri-\\ncan Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem. The chaplain acknowl-\\nedged that Rastafarians were allowed to have dreadlocks,\\nbut distinguished their situation because having dreadlocks\\nwas a requirement of their faith. On appeal, we observed\\nthat Grayson’s act of not cutting his hair could have been a\\nlegitimate aspect of his personal faith. We explained that\\n“[p]rison authorities are always entitled to balance security\\nconcerns against religious practices, and the need to do so\\nmay be greater with regard to optional than to mandatory\\npractices.” Id. at 455. Nevertheless,\\n [p]rison chaplains may not determine which\\n religious observances are permissible because\\n orthodox. … No more can the prison permit\\n Rastafarians to wear long hair and without jus-\\n tification forbid a sincere African Hebrew Isra-\\n elite of Jerusalem to do so, even if he is more\\n zealous in his religious observances than his\\n religion requires him to be.\\nId.\\n We reached a similar result in Vinning-El. Vinning-El in-\\nvolved an MSTA inmate who asked for a vegan diet as a re-\\nligious accommodation. The chaplain denied the request,\\n“observing that the tenets of [the MSTA] require a non-pork\\ndiet,” not a vegan one. 657 F.3d at 592. Vinning-El sued, and\\n\\f16 No. 17-2980\\n\\nthe district court denied the chaplain qualified immunity.\\nOn appeal, we observed that the district court had not made\\nany findings concerning the chaplain’s motivations in deny-\\ning Vinning-El’s request. The chaplain could have denied\\nthe request because he did not believe that a vegan diet was\\na tenet of the MSTA faith, or he could have denied it because\\nhe did not believe that the request was being made on reli-\\ngious grounds. If the former, the chaplain was not entitled to\\nqualified immunity because it was clearly established at the\\ntime of the denial that “[a] personal religious faith is entitled\\nto as much protection as one espoused by an organized\\ngroup.” Id. at 593. However, if the latter, then the chaplain\\nhad not violated the inmate’s rights because mere dietary\\npreferences, unrelated to religious observances, need not be\\naccommodated. Absent a determination as to the chaplain’s\\nreasoning, we could not resolve the qualified immunity\\nquestion and therefore remanded the case to the district\\ncourt. See id. at 595.\\n Neither Grayson nor Vinning-El speak to the circumstanc-\\nes before us today. In both cases, the individual inmate re-\\nquested that his religious belief be accommodated even\\nthough that belief was arguably personal to him and more\\ndemanding than the ones generally followed by adherents of\\nthe religion with which he professed to be affiliated.\\nMr. Neely-Bey presents a very different situation. He does\\nnot ask the CIF to accommodate a personal belief not re-\\nquired of MSTA adherents. Rather, he asks that the CIF re-\\nquire the MSTA to accept him as a full member even though\\nhis belief system as a declared sovereign citizen differs sub-\\nstantially from that of the MSTA and MSTA liturgical prac-\\ntices require that its adherents share their religious beliefs in\\nthe course of their worship services. The MSTA consequent-\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 17\\n\\nly believes that admitting Mr. Neely-Bey as a member would\\nchallenge its teachings and, possibly, jeopardize its status.\\n This is the crux of the defendants’ position: They main-\\ntain that, had they required the MSTA to allow Mr. Neely-\\nBey to participate as a full member in Friday services, they\\nwould have violated MSTA’s associational rights. See Boy\\nScouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000).\\n In Dale, a former Eagle Scout “applied for adult member-\\nship in the Boy Scouts” as an assistant scoutmaster. Id. at\\n644. The BSA initially approved the application, but later re-\\nvoked his membership after discovering that Dale was ho-\\nmosexual and had taken public stances in favor of gay\\nrights. According to the BSA, being a homosexual was anti-\\nthetical to its mission. Dale then instituted a state-court ac-\\ntion claiming that the BSA’s revocation of his membership\\nviolated New Jersey’s law prohibiting discrimination in pub-\\nlic accommodations. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed\\nwith Dale and further held that requiring BSA to accept Dale\\nas a scout leader did not violate BSA’s right to association\\nunder the First Amendment.\\n The Supreme Court reversed. It observed that “[t]he\\nforced inclusion of an unwanted person in a group infringes\\nthe group’s freedom of expressive association if the presence\\nof that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability\\nto advocate public or private viewpoints.” Id. at 648. In as-\\nsessing whether this was the case, the Court explained that\\ndeference is owed to the group’s formulation of its “goals\\nand philosophy,” as well as its “view of what would impair\\nits expression.” Id. at 651, 653. Because the BSA believed that\\nits principles precluded the practice of homosexuality and\\nbecause “Dale’s presence in the [BSA] would … force the or-\\n\\f18 No. 17-2980\\n\\nganization to send a message … that [it] accepts homosexual\\nconduct as a legitimate form of behavior,” “the forced inclu-\\nsion of Dale would significantly affect its expression.” Id. at\\n653, 656.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey believes that the defendants’ reliance on\\nDale is misplaced. Dale, he contends, was in a leadership\\nrole, whereas he only was asking to participate as a member\\nof the MSTA. The Court in Dale, however, did not limit its\\ndiscussion to leaders of organizations, but instead asked\\nwhether “[t]he forced inclusion of an unwanted person in a\\ngroup infringes the group’s freedom of expressive associa-\\ntion.” Id. at 648. Although the relative position of the indi-\\nvidual in a group may bear on whether the group’s inclusion\\nof the individual “affects in a significant way the group’s\\nability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” id., the\\nCourt spoke in terms of “membership” as well as leadership,\\nsee id. at 654–56. Moreover, the record reflects that, as a full\\nmember of the MSTA, Mr. Neely-Bey would be speaking to\\nother members of the congregation and commenting on the\\nwords of the Prophet and passages of the Koran. Requiring\\nthe MSTA to allow an individual to speak at its worship ser-\\nvices when that person holds beliefs antithetical to its own\\nwould significantly affect its ability to preserve and pass on\\nits message.\\n Here, Chaplain Smith and the enforcement officers were\\nrequired to balance the religious practices of one adherent\\nagainst the rights of other inmates to exercise their religious\\nbeliefs in accordance with MSTA teaching. Neither Grayson\\nnor Vinning-El offers guidance for correctional officers who\\nfind themselves in this dilemma. Indeed, there do not appear\\nto be any cases that instruct prison officials on how they\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 19\\n\\nshould strike the appropriate balance between these compet-\\ning interests. 35 As we have explained previously, “[p]ublic\\nofficials can be held liable for violating clearly established\\nlaw, but not for choosing sides on a debatable issue.” O’Keefe\\nv. Chisholm, 769 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir. 2014). The district\\ncourt, therefore, did not err in granting the defendants quali-\\nfied immunity on Mr. Neely-Bey’s damages claims under\\nthe Free Exercise Clause. 36\\n 2. Claim for Injunctive Relief\\n Mr. Neely-Bey next submits that, even if the district court\\ncorrectly granted qualified immunity to the defendants on\\nhis claim for damages, it failed to recognize that his com-\\nplaint also stated a claim for injunctive relief under both the\\nFree Exercise Clause and under RLUIPA. Moreover,\\nMr. Neely-Bey continues, qualified immunity does not pro-\\ntect the defendants from a claim for injunctive relief. See\\nHannemann v. S. Door Cnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th\\nCir. 2012). Consequently, he contends, a remand is necessary\\n\\n\\n35 Indeed, Mr. Neely-Bey notes that “Defendants have cited no decision\\nsuggesting the government can rely on a group’s associational interests\\nto limit an individual’s participation in religious services, based solely on\\nhis expression of allegedly unorthodox beliefs.” Appellant’s Br. 31. That\\ncourts have not had to grapple with this difficult issue would seem to\\ncounsel the application of qualified immunity.\\n36 Notably, the defendants make only a passing reference to whether\\nallowing Mr. Neely-Bey to participate as a full member of the religion\\nwould jeopardize the security or rehabilitative concerns of the institu-\\ntion. For reasons not at all clear to us, with the exception of this single,\\noblique reference in its appellate brief, this contention, which may well\\nhave merit, is never developed.\\n\\f20 No. 17-2980\\n\\nfor the district court to consider the merits of his claim for\\ninjunctive relief.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint, among other relief, asks that\\nthe defendants “cease all action against [him].” 37 When the\\ndistrict court screened Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint under 28\\nU.S.C. § 1915A, it nevertheless acknowledged only that he\\nwas “seek[ing] monetary relief”; the court made no mention\\nof Mr. Neely-Bey’s prayer for injunctive relief. 38 Proceeding\\non the assumption that Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims were for\\nmonetary relief alone, the court dismissed the claims against\\nCommissioner Lemmon and Superintendent Knight in their\\nofficial capacities as barred by the Eleventh Amendment and\\ndirected that these defendants be removed from the docket.\\nThe court allowed only the damages claims against Chaplain\\nSmith and Officers Conley and Sidwell to go forward.\\nMr. Neely-Bey moved for reconsideration of the screening\\norder, but not on the ground that the district court had mis-\\nread his complaint to include only claims for damages.\\n a.\\n Before us, the defendants at least tacitly acknowledge\\nthat Mr. Neely-Bey’s complaint requested injunctive relief. 39\\nThey assert, however, that Mr. Neely-Bey abandoned his\\nclaim for injunctive relief by not raising the issue in his mo-\\n\\n\\n37 R.1 at 6.\\n38 R.13 at 2.\\n39 See Appellees’ Br. 28 (noting that the district court believed that\\nMr. Neely-Bey was seeking only damages and acknowledging that “this\\nassumption may have been a mistake”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 21\\n\\ntion to reconsider or in his response to the motion for sum-\\nmary judgment.\\n It is the general rule that a litigant does not abandon an\\nargument by failing to raise it in a motion to reconsider.\\nHamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 897 F.3d 835, 838\\n(7th Cir. 2018) (“And it is never necessary to remonstrate\\nwith a judge after an order has been entered. Motions for re-\\nconsideration are discretionary, not obligatory.”). The de-\\nfendants nevertheless submit that, “where a plaintiff is seek-\\ning relief from judgment that is most appropriately awarded\\nby a trial court on a Rule 60 motion, such as where the plain-\\ntiff is claiming oversight, mistake or clerical error, the plain-\\ntiff may waive his right to present that type of argument on\\nappeal if he did not make the appropriate Rule 60 motion\\nbelow.” Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d 944, 958–59 (7th Cir.\\n2000). Here, they contend, the district court seems simply to\\nhave misread or overlooked the full extent of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims, and such an oversight falls neatly\\nwithin the coverage of Rule 60(b)(1). 40 Consequently, the de-\\nfendants submit that, because Mr. Neely-Bey failed to raise\\nthe district court’s oversight in a Rule 60(b) motion, he can-\\nnot now pursue his claim for injunctive relief.\\n We do not believe that Denius compels this result. First,\\nthe language on which the defendants rely was not part of\\nour holding. After discussing what might be the effect of De-\\n\\n40 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides: “(b) Grounds for\\nRelief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just\\nterms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a fi-\\nnal judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mis-\\ntake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect[] ….”\\n\\f22 No. 17-2980\\n\\nnius’s failure to file a Rule 60(b) motion if the court had over-\\nlooked his claim for injunctive relief, we explained that this,\\nin fact, had not occurred: “This is not a case where the dis-\\ntrict court completely overlooked plaintiff’s claims for equi-\\ntable relief.” Id. at 959. Rather, we observed, the district court\\nvery clearly had disposed of both “Denius’s claims for mon-\\netary and equitable relief through its summary judgment\\nopinion.” Id. Thus, we did not have to decide whether Deni-\\nus’s actions constituted waiver (or abandonment) because\\nthe nature of the district court’s error did not fall within the\\nlanguage of Rule 60(b).\\n Additionally, our discussion in Denius focused on the ef-\\nfect of failing to bring a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60(b), how-\\never, governs motions that seek to “‘relieve a party or its le-\\ngal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceed-\\ning’ for the enumerated reasons.” Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc.,\\n788 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n60(b)). The operative order here, however, was the district\\ncourt’s screening order, which was interlocutory. See DaSilva\\nv. Rymarkiewicz, 888 F.3d 321, 323 (7th Cir. 2018). It was in\\nthat order that the court narrowed the scope of the action to\\ninclude only claims for damages. When the defendants later\\nmoved for summary judgment, they reasonably focused\\ntheir motion on the claims for damages—the only ones still\\nbefore the court. Mr. Neely-Bey’s response, as well, was di-\\nrected to the claims for damages. There was no obvious way\\nfor Mr. Neely-Bey to revisit the dismissed claims in the brief-\\ning on the summary-judgment motion. Moreover, it was the\\ndistrict court’s summary-judgment ruling that immediately\\npreceded its entry of final judgment, the triggering event for\\na Rule 60(b) motion. Under these circumstances,\\nMr. Neely-Bey was not required to seek relief under Rule\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 23\\n\\n60(b) for the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his claims\\nfor injunctive relief. Consequently, Mr. Neely-Bey has not\\nwaived, or otherwise abandoned, his claim for injunctive re-\\nlief under the Free Exercise Clause. 41\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n41 Mr. Neely-Bey’s situation is readily distinguishable from the other\\ncases on which the defendants rely. See Heiar v. Crawford Cnty, 746 F.2d\\n1190, 1196 (7th Cir. 1984); Peterson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 806 F.3d\\n335 (5th Cir. 2015). In Heiar, we held that the defendants had waived\\ntheir statute-of-limitations defense because, although included in the\\nanswer, they never again raised it—in a dispositive, pretrial motion, as\\nan item in the pretrial order, or in a motion for judgment at trial. See 746\\nF.2d at 1196. Here, however, the district court eliminated the claim for\\ninjunctive relief sua sponte, and there was no clear opportunity for\\nMr. Neely-Bey to raise the issue again with the district court before the\\nentry of final judgment. In Peterson, the plaintiff’s complaint had includ-\\ned a prayer for “[a]ny further legal and equitable relief to which Peterson\\nmay be justly entitled.” 806 F.3d at 339 (alteration in original). However,\\nPeterson did not request specific injunctive relief until after a jury verdict\\nin his favor. The district court granted the injunction, but the Fifth Cir-\\ncuit reversed and vacated the injunction. The Fifth Circuit explained that\\nthe defendant had been prejudiced by Peterson’s inaction because, had it\\nknown that injunctive relief was at issue, it would have called additional\\nwitnesses and presented evidence specifically directed to that claim for\\nrelief. However, it had been deprived of that opportunity by the plain-\\ntiff’s failure to raise the issue earlier. Here, the defendants include boil-\\nerplate language that allowing Mr. Neely-Bey to renew his claim for in-\\njunctive relief “would prejudice the defendants by inhibiting their ability\\nto defend against Neely-Bey’s claims and substantially increase the de-\\nfendants’ potential liability.” Appellees’ Br. 32. However, the defendants\\ndo not explain how or why this is the case. Unlike the defendant in Peter-\\nson, they have not lost their ability to present evidence in opposition to\\nthis claim, and they do not explain how revival of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim\\nfor injunctive relief might substantially increase their potential liability.\\n\\f24 No. 17-2980\\n\\n b.\\n Waiver and abandonment are the only bases that the de-\\nfendants have offered for affirming the district court’s dis-\\nmissal of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief. Alt-\\nhough “[w]e may affirm a district court’s dismissal order on\\nany basis supported by the record,” Craig v. Rich Twp. High\\nSch. Dist. 227, 736 F.3d 1110, 1118 (7th Cir. 2013), we cannot\\nconclude, on this limited record, that judgment in favor of\\nthe defendants is warranted.\\n To establish a free exercise claim, Mr. Neely-Bey “had to\\nsubmit evidence from which a jury could reasonably find\\nthat the defendants personally and unjustifiably placed a\\nsubstantial burden on his religious practices.” Thompson v.\\nHolm, 809 F.3d 376, 379 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Hernandez v.\\nC.I.R., 490 U.S. 680, 699 (1989)). The Supreme Court has ex-\\nplained that a substantial burden is one that “put[s] substan-\\ntial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to\\nviolate his beliefs.” Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 718\\n(1981). In the prison context, such a burden is justified if it is\\n“reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.”\\nThompson, 809 F.3d at 380 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78,\\n89–91 (1987)).\\n Here, Mr. Neely-Bey asserts, and the defendants do not\\ncontest, that participation in Friday services, including\\nstanding to pray and discussing the words of the Prophet,\\nare central practices of the MSTA faith. The ban enforced by\\nthe CIF prevents Mr. Neely-Bey from fully participating in\\nthe Friday services. The question therefore is whether the\\nban is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 25\\n\\n Mr. Neely-Bey maintains that “the sole reason offered by\\nDefendants for these restrictions was enforcement of a\\nmemorandum from an outside MSTA volunteer minister.” 42\\nAccording to Mr. Neely-Bey, “[i]t was, purely and simply, a\\nreaction to perceived religious heresy,” and the defendants’\\nenforcement of religious orthodoxy “is not a legitimate peno-\\nlogical interest.” 43\\n As we already have discussed, however, this statement\\ndoes not fairly characterize the situation. Brother Doles Bey’s\\nmemo simply does not request that the prison enforce any\\nreligious doctrine. It does not ask the CIF, for instance, to\\nserve MSTA adherents only porkless meals (a requirement\\nof the faith) and to enforce that abstinence through disci-\\npline. Instead, the memo simply requested that the CIF al-\\nlow the MSTA to choose those who may speak authoritative-\\nly on matters of faith. Therefore, contrary to Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nassertion, there is evidence in the record to establish that the\\nCIF’s actions were motivated by a desire to protect the rights\\nof other MSTA adherents at the CIF. The memorandum from\\nBrother Doles Bey clearly articulates a concern that, if\\nMr. Neely-Bey, a professed sovereign citizen, were allowed\\nto speak at MSTA services, the congregation of worshippers\\nmight be disbanded. It also refers to the need for the MSTA\\nto conduct the Friday prayer services in accordance with the\\nrequirements of its tradition. 44\\n\\n\\n42 Appellant’s Br. 28.\\n43 Id. at 28–29.\\n44\\n See R.81 at 72 (“The Acting Chairman presides over the[] meetings and\\nmakes sure that the meeting is opened and closed according to the laws\\n (continued … )\\n\\f26 No. 17-2980\\n\\n Although the term “penological interests” is most typi-\\ncally articulated in terms of a penal institution’s interest in\\nsecurity and financial stability, it is well-established that the\\nterm also encompasses far wider concerns of just governance\\nin the penal setting. See, e.g., Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 530–\\n32 (2006) (plurality opinion) (holding that encouraging pro-\\ngress toward rehabilitation serves legitimate penological ob-\\njectives); Jones v. Brown, 461 F.3d 353, 364 (3d Cir. 2006) (not-\\ning that “the health and safety of inmates … are legitimate\\npenological interests”); Goodwin v. Turner, 908 F.2d 1395,\\n1399–1400 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that treating male and fe-\\nmale inmates equally furthered a legitimate penological in-\\nterest). We have no doubt that the term also involves the\\nprotection of the constitutional rights of other prisoners. In-\\ndeed, prison officials are under a constitutional duty to pro-\\ntect those rights. We therefore have no doubt that the prison\\nofficials are on solid ground in maintaining that they have a\\nright, and indeed an obligation, to protect the right of other\\nprisoners who adhere to the MSTA faith to worship in a\\ncongregational manner to the extent that such a practice is\\nconsistent with other penal objectives.\\n Of course, in asserting such an objective and in choosing\\na means to achieve such an objective, Turner v. Safley, 482\\nU.S. 78, 89–90 (1987), teaches that prison officials cannot rely\\non the mere incantation of a penal interest but must come\\nforward with record evidence that substantiates that the in-\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nand Customs of the Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. and sets\\nthe tone for services to flow smoothly and without [sic] from the\\nbody/membership; and guests.”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 27\\n\\nterest is truly at risk and that prison officials have chosen an\\nappropriate manner to assert that interest. Before us, the de-\\nfendants justify their actions only in terms of the MSTA’s\\nrights without any reference to the possible impact on the\\nsecurity, operations, or finances of the CIF. Under such cir-\\ncumstances, we cannot conclude that the defendants have\\narticulated a legitimate “penological” reason for denying\\nMr. Neely-Bey full participation in MSTA’s Friday services. 45\\n The merits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim for injunctive relief\\ntherefore remain an open question. In considering this ques-\\ntion, the district court should not only determine the propri-\\nety of injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause, but\\npossible relief under RLUIPA. We have observed that, when\\na pro se prisoner asserts a claim under the Free Exercise\\nClause, the district court should interpret that constitutional\\nclaim to include a statutory claim under RLUIPA. Grayson,\\n666 F.3d at 451.46 RLUIPA prohibits prison officials from\\n\\n45 In writing the Report of Conduct, Chaplain Smith interpreted\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s actions as intending to interfere with and disrupt MSTA\\nservices on Holy Days. See R.81 at 73. Avoiding disruption of, and inter-\\nference with, the meetings of authorized groups at the CIF is a legitimate\\npenological interest. However, as already discussed, the defendants have\\nnot argued that this was a consideration in the action they took against\\nMr. Neely-Bey.\\n46 Although damages are not available under RLUIPA, injunctive relief\\nis. See Grayson v. Schuler, 666 F.3d 450, 451 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, because\\nsovereign immunity and qualified immunity protect government offi-\\ncials only from damages suits, those doctrines cannot protect officials\\nfrom claims for injunctive relief brought under RLUIPA. See Sorrentino v.\\nGodinez, 777 F.3d 410, 415 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Sovereign immunity normally\\ndoes not bar suits for injunctive relief in federal court alleging that a state\\nofficial violated the federal constitution or laws.”); Hannemann v. S. Door\\n (continued … )\\n\\f28 No. 17-2980\\n\\n“impos[ing] a substantial burden on the religious exercise”\\nof an inmate “unless the government demonstrates that im-\\nposition of the burden on that person … is the least restric-\\ntive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental inter-\\nest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). Because RLUIPA “confers\\ngreater religious rights on prisoners than the free exercise\\nclause has been interpreted to do,” Grayson, 666 F.3d at 451,\\nit is possible that Mr. Neely-Bey is entitled to statutory in-\\njunctive relief even if he cannot establish a right to relief un-\\nder the Free Exercise Clause.\\n A word of caution. On remand, the district court first\\nshould consider whether subsequent events have rendered\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. Prior to\\noral argument, the defendants notified us that\\nMr. Neely-Bey had been transferred from the CIF to the\\nWestville Correctional Facility. At oral argument, counsel for\\nthe defendants suggested that the transfer rendered\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief moot. However,\\nthere is no evidence in the record regarding how\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s transfer will affect his ability to participate\\nin MSTA worship. Moreover, we do not know the likelihood\\nof Mr. Neely-Bey being transferred back to the CIF. See\\nYoung v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 373–74 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting\\nthat the likelihood of being transferred back to an institution\\nis a factual determination for the district court). We leave it,\\ntherefore, to the district court to determine on a more devel-\\n\\n\\n( … continued)\\nCnty. Sch. Dist., 673 F.3d 746, 758 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he defense of quali-\\nfied immunity does not protect defendants from an action for injunctive\\nrelief.”).\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 29\\n\\noped record the effect of Mr. Neely-Bey’s transfer on his\\nclaims for injunctive relief under the Free Exercise Clause\\nand RLUIPA.\\n In sum, we agree with the district court that the defend-\\nants are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nclaims for damages under the Free Exercise Clause. Howev-\\ner, the district court failed to consider Mr. Neely-Bey’s\\nclaims for injunctive relief under either the Free Exercise\\nClause or under RLUIPA. We therefore remand to the dis-\\ntrict court for further consideration of these claims in the\\nfirst instance, including the effect of any subsequent events\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief.\\nB. Establishment Clause\\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the district court erred\\nin failing to address his Establishment Clause claim. He fur-\\nther asserts that, had the district court considered the claim,\\nit would have concluded that the defendants violated the\\nEstablishment Clause in enforcing Brother Doles Bey’s pro-\\nhibition against his full participation in MSTA meetings.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey is correct that the district court’s order\\ngranting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment did\\nnot explicitly mention the Establishment Clause. However, it\\ndid speak more broadly of whether the defendants’ actions\\nhad violated Mr. Neely-Bey’s “rights under the First\\nAmendment.” 47 It concluded that there was no controlling\\nauthority “directly establishing that the defendants’ conduct\\nin this case, where state officials enforced a ban from partici-\\n\\n\\n47 R.84 at 8.\\n\\f30 No. 17-2980\\n\\npating in religious activities that was put in place by the re-\\nligious entity itself, violated Mr. [Neely-Bey’s] rights under\\nthe First Amendment.” 48 It therefore granted qualified im-\\nmunity to the defendants. We turn, therefore, to the question\\nwhether the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claim under the Establishment Clause.\\n 1.\\n Mr. Neely-Bey submits that, at the time Chaplain Smith\\nlimited his participation in MSTA meetings, it was clear that\\nsuch action violated the Establishment Clause. He begins by\\nnoting that then, as now, “[a] government policy or practice\\nviolates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular pur-\\npose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or\\n(3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.” Kauf-\\nman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 683 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing\\nLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612–13 (1971)). According to\\nMr. Neely-Bey, the defendants’ actions violated all three\\nprongs.\\n First, he claims that there is no secular purpose for ban-\\nning him from participating in MSTA Holy Day services. In-\\nstead, he contends, the defendants’ “only reason for impos-\\ning this restriction is a desire to enforce the religious di-\\nrective of an outside volunteer minister, a directive that is\\nbased entirely on religious orthodoxy.”49 We cannot accept\\nthis submission. In determining whether a government ac-\\ntion has a secular purpose, “a government’s characterization\\nof its purpose is entitled to deference, although courts must\\n\\n48 Id. at 7–8.\\n49 Appellant’s Br. 41.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 31\\n\\nensure that the government’s characterization is sincere.”\\nVision Church v. Vill. of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Fairly read, the de-\\nfendants have stated that their reason for giving effect to\\nBrother Doles Bey’s memo was to protect the associational\\nrights of the MSTA to choose, in the context of a religious\\nworship ceremony, participants and leaders of the ob-\\nservance. Chaplain Smith’s directive to Mr. Neely-Bey\\nmakes this objective crystal clear. The directive explicitly\\nrecognizes Mr. Neely-Bey “as a guest of MST of A,” who\\ncould “listen,” but not instruct at MSTA meetings. 50 In pro-\\ntecting the rights of the other prisoners, as was their obliga-\\ntion, the defendants may have reinforced incidentally the\\ntenets of that faith. There is no evidence in the record, how-\\never, their actions were designed to produce such an effect. 51\\n Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that the primary effect of\\nthe action is to advance the orthodoxy of the MSTA. He be-\\nlieves that his situation mirrors the “pernicious fusion” of\\nchurch and state that the Court condemned in Larkin v.\\nGrendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 (1982), and Board of Education\\n\\n\\n\\n50 R.81 at 78.\\n51 Mr. Neely-Bey also maintains that he is being singled out because of\\nhis religious beliefs. “The restriction imposed by Defendants,”\\nMr. Neely-Bey explains, “which prohibits [him] from speaking or stand-\\ning during Friday Holy Day services while others do so[,] is not based on\\nany neutral or generally applicable rules about conduct or even member-\\nship in religious groups or participation in religious services.” Appel-\\nlant’s Br. 42. It is, however, based on a neutral rule—that religious asso-\\nciations should be able to control their own leadership and membership.\\n\\f32 No. 17-2980\\n\\nof Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687\\n(1994). 52\\n In Larkin, a Massachusetts state law provided that estab-\\nlishments “located within a radius of five hundred feet of a\\nchurch or school shall not be licensed for the sale of alcoholic\\nbeverages if the governing body of such church or school\\nfile[d] [a] written objection” to the license. 459 U.S. at 117 (in-\\nternal quotation marks omitted). The Court determined that\\nthe statute resulted in an unconstitutional cessation of gov-\\nernmental authority to a religious institution:\\n Section 16C gives churches the right to deter-\\n mine whether a particular applicant will be\\n granted a liquor license, or even which one of\\n several competing applicants will receive a li-\\n cense.\\n The churches’ power under the statute is\\n standardless, calling for no reasons, findings,\\n or reasoned conclusions. That power may\\n therefore be used by churches to promote goals\\n beyond insulating the church from undesirable\\n neighbors; it could be employed for explicitly\\n religious goals, for example, favoring liquor li-\\n censes for members of that congregation or\\n adherents of that faith.\\nId. at 125. It therefore did “not strain” the Court’s “prior\\nholdings to say that the statute can be seen as having a ‘pri-\\nmary’ and ‘principal’ effect of advancing religion.” Id. at 126.\\n\\n\\n52 Id. at 44.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 33\\n\\n Similarly, in Kiryas Joel Village School District, a special\\nstate law had created a school district, the lines of which\\nwere the same as the lines of property owned by a Hasidic\\nJewish congregation. The result was that the provision of\\npublic educational services within a district had been\\nawarded based on religious views and was completely con-\\ntrolled by a religious body. The Court observed that the Free\\nExercise and Establishment Clauses “‘compel[] the State to\\npursue a course of “neutrality” toward religion,’ favoring\\nneither one religion over others nor religious adherents col-\\nlectively over nonadherents.” Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Vill.\\nSch. Dist., 512 U.S. at 696 (quoting Comm. for Pub. Ed. & Reli-\\ngious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 792–93 (1973)). The\\nstatute at issue, the Court explained, “depart[ed] from this\\nconstitutional command by delegating the State’s discretion-\\nary authority over public schools to a group defined by its\\ncharacter as a religious community, in a legal and historical\\ncontext that gives no assurance that governmental power\\nhas been or will be exercised neutrally.” Id.\\n In both Larken and Kiryas Joel Village School District, there-\\nfore, a formal enactment ceded a discretionary function of\\ngovernance to a religious body. The CIF, however, has not\\nceded disciplinary authority to the MSTA. The CIF has not\\ngiven the MSTA the power to discipline an MSTA member\\nif, for instance, the member fails to attend Friday services.\\nInstead, the MSTA asked the CIF defendants to protect its\\nright to control the religious content of the MSTA’s own\\nmeetings by determining who may or may not teach its con-\\ngregants. Here, a religious entity has not been given carte\\nblanche to administer a government program or bestow a\\ngovernment benefit as it sees fit.\\n\\f34 No. 17-2980\\n\\n Finally, Mr. Neely-Bey submits that the CIF’s enforce-\\nment of Brother Doles Bey’s memo violates the entangle-\\nment prong of the Lemon test. To establish excessive entan-\\nglement with religion, Mr. Neely-Bey has to “demonstrate\\n‘sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of\\nthe sovereign in religious activity.’” Vision Church, 468 F.3d\\nat 995 (quoting Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equaliza-\\ntion of California, 493 U.S. 378, 393 (1990)). “The general rule\\nis that, to constitute excessive entanglement, the government\\naction must involve ‘intrusive government participation in,\\nsupervision of, or inquiry into religious affairs.’” Id. (quoting\\nUnited States v. Indianapolis Baptist Temple, 224 F.3d 627, 631\\n(7th Cir. 2000)).\\n Mr. Neely-Bey does not address these standards or sug-\\ngest how the evidence in the record establishes the level of\\nintrusiveness required for entanglement. Instead, he submits\\nthat Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2009), necessitates\\nsuch a finding of entanglement.\\n In Nelson, an Illinois inmate had requested a meatless di-\\net on Fridays as an act of penance in accordance with his\\nCatholic faith. The correctional facility’s chaplain, Miller, re-\\nviewed the request, “cross-checking the inmate’s declared\\nreligious affiliation to determine if a religious diet was re-\\nquired”; specifically, he “looked for confirmation of the reli-\\ngious dietary tenet ‘on paper’—that is, he looked for confir-\\nmation of the requirement in some ‘church document’—as\\nopposed to inquiring regarding the spiritual goals of the in-\\nmate.” Id. at 872. The prison chaplain denied the request,\\nand, in his denial, he “cited several Bible passages purport-\\nedly contradicting Nelson’s beliefs regarding penance.” Id. at\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 35\\n\\n881. Eventually, at the direction of the warden, Nelson re-\\nceived a vegan diet.\\n Nelson filed an action against Miller and several other\\nadministrators at the correctional facility, alleging, among\\nother claims, a violation of the Establishment Clause. Specif-\\nically, Nelson alleged that Miller had “favored Muslim and\\nAfrican Hebrew Israelite prisoners by approving vegan diets\\nfor those prisoners without obtaining written verification\\nthat such diets were required by their religions.” Id. at 880–\\n81. The district court, however, “found that Nelson had not\\nproven a violation of the establishment clause because there\\nwere valid neutral reasons for Miller’s actions in this re-\\ngard.” Id. at 881. On appeal, we agreed with the district\\ncourt. We explained that the correctional facility’s regula-\\ntions\\n provided that prisoners could abstain from\\n “any foods the consumption of which violates\\n their required religious tenets” and the district\\n court concluded that Miller had required doc-\\n umentation because he was unfamiliar with\\n any Catholic “required religious tenet” which\\n necessitated a non-meat diet. Under the district\\n court’s reasoning, Miller did not ask Muslim\\n and African Hebrew Israelite prisoners to\\n submit verification because he understood\\n from his experience that a limited diet was part\\n of many of these prisoners’ religious practice.\\nId.\\n Nevertheless, we observed, Miller’s denial, which “cited\\nseveral Bible passages purportedly contradicting Nelson’s\\n\\f36 No. 17-2980\\n\\nbeliefs regarding penance, improperly entangled [Miller] in\\nmatters of religious interpretation. It simply [wa]s not ap-\\npropriate for a prison official to argue with a prisoner re-\\ngarding the objective truth of a prisoner’s religious belief.”\\nId.\\n We fail to see Nelson’s application to the circumstances\\nhere. Chaplain Smith did not undertake his own review of\\nMSTA doctrine. Rather, he was told by the MSTA minister at\\nthe CIF, Brother Doles Bey, 53 that Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession\\nof sovereign citizenship 54 precluded him from full member-\\nship and participation in the MSTA. This tension between\\nthe tenets of the MSTA and the sovereign-citizen movement\\nis well documented in our case law. See Bey v. State, 847 F.3d\\n559, 560–61 (7th Cir. 2017). Chaplain Smith accepted the\\nstatement of the MSTA representative; he made no commen-\\ntary at all concerning the “objective truth” of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s beliefs. He simply forbade him from dis-\\nrupting the MSTA service.\\n In sum, at the very least, Chaplain Smith did not act in a\\nmanner inconsistent with existing precedent. See al-Kidd, 563\\nU.S. at 741. Consequently, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment granting qualified immunity to the defendants on\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages under the Establish-\\nment Clause.\\n\\n\\n\\n53 Again, there is no question that Brother Doles Bey is the designated\\nrepresentative of the MSTA at the CIF. See supra note 9.\\n54As noted previously, see supra note 8, Mr. Neely-Bey’s profession of\\nsovereign-citizen beliefs is not at issue here.\\n\\fNo. 17-2980 37\\n\\n 2.\\n As we already have noted, qualified immunity protects\\nthe defendants only against claims for damages; it does not\\nprotect the defendants against claims for injunctive relief. See\\nHannemann, 673 F.3d at 758. The district court failed to rec-\\nognize Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief and,\\ntherefore, never addressed the merits of those claims. On\\nappeal, the defendants, as well, have failed to address the\\nmerits of Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under\\nthe Establishment Clause. They simply maintain that\\nMr. Neely-Bey has waived or abandoned any claims for in-\\njunctive relief—a contention we already have rejected.\\n If the record contained any evidence that might support\\nthe granting of injunctive relief, we would vacate the district\\ncourt’s judgment in this respect and remand for further pro-\\nceedings. However, as our earlier discussion of\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s Establishment Clause argument demon-\\nstrates, the record is entirely devoid of any evidence that\\nmight form the basis for such a claim. Consequently, the dis-\\ntrict court need not revisit the matter of injunctive relief on\\nremand.\\n Conclusion\\n For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s\\njudgment regarding Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for damages\\nunder the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses. We also\\ndirect the district court to enter judgment for the defendants\\non Mr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Es-\\ntablishment Clause. However, we remand the case to the\\ndistrict court for it to consider, in the first instance,\\nMr. Neely-Bey’s claims for injunctive relief under the Free\\n\\f38 No. 17-2980\\n\\nExercise Clause and under RLUIPA. In undertaking this\\ntask, the district court first should ensure that the controver-\\nsy has not become moot.\\n The parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.\\n AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":170,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578325,"string":"4,578,325"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Mandy L. Hagen"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1579"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐1579 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMANDY L. HAGEN, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Southern District of Illinois. \\n No. 17‐CR‐40011 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Mandy Hagen was convicted twice \\nunder Illinois law for failing to get her children to school. \\nWhen she later pleaded guilty in federal court for conspiring \\nto distribute methamphetamine, the district court counted her \\ntwo convictions for allowing child truancy toward her crimi‐\\nnal history score. That was an error. Section 4A1.2(c) of the \\nSentencing Guidelines excludes certain crimes, and those \\n“similar to” them, from a defendant’s criminal history. One of \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\nthe listed offenses is non‐support, which involves failing to \\nprovide for a child’s basic needs. Permitting truancy is a sim‐\\nilar offense, and a less serious one at that. Hagen’s criminal \\nhistory score must be recalculated, this time excluding her \\ntwo truancy‐related offenses. \\n I. \\n In 2013, Mandy Hagen joined a scheme to distribute meth‐\\namphetamine to several counties in Illinois. As part of this en‐\\nterprise, she sold meth, provided ingredients and a venue for \\nits manufacture, and collected drug debts. After a few close \\ncalls with law enforcement, Hagen was finally arraigned in \\nMay 2017. She pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy \\nto distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. \\n At sentencing, the government contended that the district \\ncourt should count Hagen’s two prior offenses for Guardian \\nAllows Child Truancy, a crime under 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐\\n10, in calculating her criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. \\n§ 4A1.1(c). Hagen had pleaded guilty to this offense twice. \\nDuring the 2013–14 school year, she allowed her child M.F. to \\nbe truant for 21 days. Then in 2015, she allowed another of her \\nchildren, B.F., to accumulate 18 unexcused absences. Includ‐\\ning these two convictions in the calculation of Hagen’s crimi‐\\nnal history score put her in a higher criminal history category \\nthan she would have otherwise been in. \\n Hagen objected to their inclusion, insisting that they fell \\nwithin § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines, which excludes certain \\nspecific offenses—and those “similar to” them—from a de‐\\nfendant’s criminal history. According to Hagen, Guardian Al‐\\nlows Child Truancy is similar enough to the listed excluded \\noffense of “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy” that it \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 3\\n\\nshould be excluded. The government responded that permit‐\\nting truancy is a more serious offense than actually being tru‐\\nant, since adult guardians are held to a higher standard of re‐\\nsponsibility than are the children in their care. The district \\ncourt sided with the government, and Hagen appeals that de‐\\ncision. \\n II. \\n Under the Guidelines, prior offenses—including misde‐\\nmeanors and petty offenses—typically increase the defend‐\\nant’s criminal history score, which in turn affects the recom‐\\nmended sentencing range. But § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines \\nprovides two lists of offenses that courts are to treat differ‐\\nently when calculating a criminal history score. Section \\n4A1.2(c)(1) instructs that \\n [s]entences for the following prior offenses and \\n offenses similar to them, by whatever name \\n they are known, are counted only if (A) the sen‐\\n tence was a term of probation of more than one \\n year or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty \\n days, or (B) the prior offense was similar to an \\n instant offense[.] \\n It then lists various offenses, including careless driving, \\ngambling, contempt of court, prostitution, and non‐support. \\nSection 4A1.2(c)(2) says that certain offenses should never be \\ncounted. Those include offenses such as fish and game viola‐\\ntions, juvenile status offenses and truancy, loitering, and \\nspeeding. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2). Like § 4A1.2(c)(1), this sec‐\\ntion states that any offenses “similar to” the enumerated of‐\\nfenses, “by whatever name they are known,” are not to be \\ncounted. Id. \\n\\f4 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\n Hagen concedes that allowing truancy is not specifically \\nlisted in either § 4A1.2(c)(1) or (c)(2). The question is whether \\nher convictions should be excluded from her criminal history \\nscore because they are “similar to” one or more of those listed \\noffenses. The Guidelines commentary on § 4A1.2(c) lists five \\nfactors for courts to consider in analyzing this issue: (1) “a \\ncomparison of punishments imposed for the listed and un‐\\nlisted offenses,” (2) “the perceived seriousness of the offense \\nas indicated by the level of punishment,” (3) “the elements of \\nthe offense,” (4) “the level of culpability involved,” and (5) \\n“the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates \\na likelihood of recurring criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 \\ncmt. 12(A). In applying these factors, courts are to take a \\n“common sense approach.” Id. \\n The Illinois Code makes it a crime for “[a]ny person hav‐\\ning custody or control of a child … to whom notice has been \\ngiven of the child’s truancy … [to] knowingly and willfully \\npermit[] such a child to persist in his truancy within that \\nschool year.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10.1 A child is truant if \\nthey are “absent without valid cause … from such attendance \\nfor more than 1% but less than 5% of the past 180 school \\ndays.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐2a. A guardian who allows \\ntruancy commits a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to \\n“30 days [of] imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $500.” 105 \\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Class C misdemeanors are the least \\nserious misdemeanors in the Illinois code. See 730 Ill. Comp. \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n 1 Though the name doesn’t seem to appear in the Illinois code, we take \\n\\nthe parties’ lead in calling this offense “Guardian Allows Child Truancy.” \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 5\\n\\nStat. 5/5‐4.5‐10, 5/5‐4.5‐65. And the maximum fine for allow‐\\ning truancy is lower than the usual $1,500 cap for a Class C \\nmisdemeanor in Illinois. See id. at 5/5‐4.5‐65(e). \\n Hagen’s argument below was that her offenses were sim‐\\nilar to “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy,” an offense \\nlisted in § 4A1.2(c)(2). She renews this argument on appeal. \\nHer basic point is that Guardian Allows Child Truancy is \\nnothing more than aiding and abetting truancy. If that’s right, \\nshe says, then allowing truancy would be at most identical in \\nseriousness to the underlying offense it abets, and it couldn’t \\nlogically be worse. \\n We disagree. Adults who allow (or abet) truancy are more \\nculpable than the truant children themselves. They are held \\nto a higher standard than those in their care, and for good rea‐\\nson. Children can’t generally be expected to understand the \\nimportance of their school attendance. But adults should \\nknow better. \\n The truancy laws in Illinois reflect this reasoning. The Illi‐\\nnois Code doesn’t criminalize truancy by children—it doesn’t \\neven allow for any punitive action to be taken unless support‐\\nive services and resources have been provided to the student. \\n105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐12. But it does criminalize the allow‐\\nance of truancy by a guardian. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. In‐\\ndeed, “criminal proceedings under the [truancy statutes] are \\ndirected against those having custody of the child, not the \\nchild himself.” In re K.S.Y., 416 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ill. Ct. App. \\n1981). This is a significant difference in punishment, and it in‐\\ndicates different levels of seriousness between the offenses. \\nWe therefore conclude that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nis not sufficiently similar to truancy itself to merit exclusion \\nunder that part of § 4A1.2(c)(2). \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\n III. \\n That is not to say that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nshould necessarily count toward Hagen’s criminal history cat‐\\negory. Hagen contends that even if this offense is insuffi‐\\nciently similar to truancy, it should be excluded because of its \\nsimilarity to other offenses marked for exclusion by \\n§§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2). \\n Hagen did not raise this more general argument before the \\ndistrict court; there, she focused solely on the comparison be‐\\ntween allowing truancy and truancy itself. Because she for‐\\nfeited the point she now presses, the government is correct \\nthat we can review it only for plain error. See United States v. \\nGarrett, 528 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2008). Under the plain error \\ntest, we “decide whether there was an error, whether it was \\nplain, and whether it affected substantial rights.” Id. If so, then \\n“we may exercise our discretion only if the error seriously af‐\\nfects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial \\nproceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). \\n None of the offenses listed in §§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) is \\nexactly like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. But while allow‐\\ning truancy is more serious than simple truancy, it is substan‐\\ntially less serious than one comparable offense listed in \\n§ 4A1.2(c)(1): non‐support, which involves various failures to \\nsupport or provide maintenance for a spouse or child to \\nwhom one is obligated. See, e.g., 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \\n Non‐support is a (c)(1) offense. Those offenses (and those \\nsimilar to them) are only counted if the sentence was a term \\nof probation of more than one year or a term of imprisonment \\nof at least thirty days, or if the prior offense was similar to an \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 7\\n\\ninstant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Hagen’s Guardian Al‐\\nlows Child Truancy sentences were for only four days total, \\nand they were not similar to the drug conspiracy conviction \\nfor which she is being sentenced here.2 Thus, if her prior of‐\\nfenses were similar to non‐support, the district court should \\nnot have included them. \\n As noted, non‐support bears an obvious resemblance to \\nallowing truancy because both offenses involve a guardian’s \\nfailure to fulfill her responsibilities to a minor in her care. And \\nthe following analysis of the five factors from the Guidelines \\ncommentary does more than confirm this resemblance—it re‐\\nveals that non‐support is a significantly more serious offense \\nthan Guardian Allows Child Truancy. It would plainly violate \\nour common sense approach to hold that the less serious of‐\\nfense must be counted while the more serious one is exempt. \\n The first factor compares the punishments for each of‐\\nfense. Looking at Illinois’s code, we see that a person con‐\\nvicted of non‐support is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor at \\nbest, and a Class 4 felony at worst. 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. \\n16/15(b). The former carries a sentence of less than one year of \\nimprisonment, and the latter carries a sentence of not less than \\none year and not more than three years. 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. \\n5/5‐4.5‐45, 5/5‐4.5‐55. These sentences are both much more \\nsignificant than the 30‐day maximum imprisonment for Class \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n 2 Hagen’s first Guardian Allows Child Truancy offense earned her \\n\\ntwo days’ imprisonment, six months of delayed court supervision, and a \\nfine of $210. Her second resulted in a sentence of two weekends’ impris‐\\nonment, twelve months of court supervision, and a $180 fine. Her second \\nfine and both terms of imprisonment were stayed. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\nC misdemeanors like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. 730 Ill. \\nComp. Stat. 5/5‐4.5‐65. \\n The relative sentences suggest a considerable difference in \\nthe seriousness of these two offenses as indicated by their \\npunishments, which we consider under the second commen‐\\ntary factor. And the fact that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nis the less serious of the two cuts very strongly in favor of ex‐\\ncluding it under § 4A1.2(c)(1). \\n Under the third factor, we compare the elements of the of‐\\nfense. Here again, we see similarity between the two. Guard‐\\nian Allows Child Truancy involves positions of authority over \\na child and a willful failure to fulfill one’s responsibilities to \\nthat child. See 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Non‐support in‐\\nvolves a similar, and we think more serious, failure toward a \\nchild or spouse. See 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \\n This comparative culpability goes toward the fourth fac‐\\ntor. Refusing to support a child strikes us as a more severe \\noffense than allowing truancy. Non‐support involves one \\nwho “without lawful excuse, deserts or willfully refuses to \\nprovide for the support or maintenance of his or her \\nchild … .” Id. We think that one who deserts a child or fails to \\nprovide for the child’s basic necessities is more culpable than \\none who permits a child to skip school. \\n The fifth factor asks us to compare the extent to which \\nthese offenses suggest a likelihood of recurring criminal con‐\\nduct. It isn’t entirely clear which way this cuts, since both \\ncrimes could be committed under many different circum‐\\nstances. But at the very least, it doesn’t seem that permitting \\ntruancy is any more likely to suggest future criminal conduct \\nthan is non‐support. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 9\\n\\n In sum, the five‐factor test confirms that Guardian Allows \\nChild Truancy is similar to the offense of non‐support and \\nthat § 4A1.2(c)(1) therefore required its exclusion from Ha‐\\ngen’s criminal history score. Non‐support bears so many ob‐\\nvious similarities to Guardian Allows Child Truancy that the \\ncourt plainly ought to have considered it. And it is so clearly \\nmore serious than Hagen’s offenses that we are convinced \\nthat the court committed plain error. This error affected a sub‐\\nstantial right—Hagen’s freedom—by increasing her recom‐\\nmended sentence under the Guidelines. See Garrett, 528 F.3d \\nat 527 (“A sentence based on an incorrect Guideline range \\nconstitutes an error affecting substantial rights and can thus \\nconstitute plain error, which requires us to remand unless we \\nhave reason to believe that the error did not affect the district \\ncourt’s selection of a particular sentence.”). And the fact that \\nthe more serious offense of non‐support is excluded would \\nmake it particularly unjust to count the similar, less serious \\noffense of Guardian Allows Child Truancy toward Hagen’s \\ncriminal history score. We believe that letting this error stand \\nwould “seriously affect[] the fairness … of judicial proceed‐\\nings,” justifying a rare exercise of our discretion in reversing \\nunder a plain error standard. See Garrett, 528 F.3d at 527. \\n * * * \\n We REVERSE the district court’s sentence and REMAND \\nfor resentencing in accordance with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355578/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578325/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Mandy L. Hagen\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐1579 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \n v. \n\nMANDY L. HAGEN, \n Defendant‐Appellant. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Southern District of Illinois. \n No. 17‐CR‐40011 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Mandy Hagen was convicted twice \nunder Illinois law for failing to get her children to school. \nWhen she later pleaded guilty in federal court for conspiring \nto distribute methamphetamine, the district court counted her \ntwo convictions for allowing child truancy toward her crimi‐\nnal history score. That was an error. Section 4A1.2(c) of the \nSentencing Guidelines excludes certain crimes, and those \n“similar to” them, from a defendant’s criminal history. One of \n\f2 No. 18‐1579 \n\nthe listed offenses is non‐support, which involves failing to \nprovide for a child’s basic needs. Permitting truancy is a sim‐\nilar offense, and a less serious one at that. Hagen’s criminal \nhistory score must be recalculated, this time excluding her \ntwo truancy‐related offenses. \n I. \n In 2013, Mandy Hagen joined a scheme to distribute meth‐\namphetamine to several counties in Illinois. As part of this en‐\nterprise, she sold meth, provided ingredients and a venue for \nits manufacture, and collected drug debts. After a few close \ncalls with law enforcement, Hagen was finally arraigned in \nMay 2017. She pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy \nto distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. \n At sentencing, the government contended that the district \ncourt should count Hagen’s two prior offenses for Guardian \nAllows Child Truancy, a crime under 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐\n10, in calculating her criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. \n§ 4A1.1(c). Hagen had pleaded guilty to this offense twice. \nDuring the 2013–14 school year, she allowed her child M.F. to \nbe truant for 21 days. Then in 2015, she allowed another of her \nchildren, B.F., to accumulate 18 unexcused absences. Includ‐\ning these two convictions in the calculation of Hagen’s crimi‐\nnal history score put her in a higher criminal history category \nthan she would have otherwise been in. \n Hagen objected to their inclusion, insisting that they fell \nwithin § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines, which excludes certain \nspecific offenses—and those “similar to” them—from a de‐\nfendant’s criminal history. According to Hagen, Guardian Al‐\nlows Child Truancy is similar enough to the listed excluded \noffense of “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy” that it \n\fNo. 18‐1579 3\n\nshould be excluded. The government responded that permit‐\nting truancy is a more serious offense than actually being tru‐\nant, since adult guardians are held to a higher standard of re‐\nsponsibility than are the children in their care. The district \ncourt sided with the government, and Hagen appeals that de‐\ncision. \n II. \n Under the Guidelines, prior offenses—including misde‐\nmeanors and petty offenses—typically increase the defend‐\nant’s criminal history score, which in turn affects the recom‐\nmended sentencing range. But § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines \nprovides two lists of offenses that courts are to treat differ‐\nently when calculating a criminal history score. Section \n4A1.2(c)(1) instructs that \n [s]entences for the following prior offenses and \n offenses similar to them, by whatever name \n they are known, are counted only if (A) the sen‐\n tence was a term of probation of more than one \n year or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty \n days, or (B) the prior offense was similar to an \n instant offense[.] \n It then lists various offenses, including careless driving, \ngambling, contempt of court, prostitution, and non‐support. \nSection 4A1.2(c)(2) says that certain offenses should never be \ncounted. Those include offenses such as fish and game viola‐\ntions, juvenile status offenses and truancy, loitering, and \nspeeding. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2). Like § 4A1.2(c)(1), this sec‐\ntion states that any offenses “similar to” the enumerated of‐\nfenses, “by whatever name they are known,” are not to be \ncounted. Id. \n\f4 No. 18‐1579 \n\n Hagen concedes that allowing truancy is not specifically \nlisted in either § 4A1.2(c)(1) or (c)(2). The question is whether \nher convictions should be excluded from her criminal history \nscore because they are “similar to” one or more of those listed \noffenses. The Guidelines commentary on § 4A1.2(c) lists five \nfactors for courts to consider in analyzing this issue: (1) “a \ncomparison of punishments imposed for the listed and un‐\nlisted offenses,” (2) “the perceived seriousness of the offense \nas indicated by the level of punishment,” (3) “the elements of \nthe offense,” (4) “the level of culpability involved,” and (5) \n“the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates \na likelihood of recurring criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 \ncmt. 12(A). In applying these factors, courts are to take a \n“common sense approach.” Id. \n The Illinois Code makes it a crime for “[a]ny person hav‐\ning custody or control of a child … to whom notice has been \ngiven of the child’s truancy … [to] knowingly and willfully \npermit[] such a child to persist in his truancy within that \nschool year.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10.1 A child is truant if \nthey are “absent without valid cause … from such attendance \nfor more than 1% but less than 5% of the past 180 school \ndays.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐2a. A guardian who allows \ntruancy commits a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to \n“30 days [of] imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $500.” 105 \nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Class C misdemeanors are the least \nserious misdemeanors in the Illinois code. See 730 Ill. Comp. \n\n\n\n\n \n 1 Though the name doesn’t seem to appear in the Illinois code, we take \n\nthe parties’ lead in calling this offense “Guardian Allows Child Truancy.” \n\fNo. 18‐1579 5\n\nStat. 5/5‐4.5‐10, 5/5‐4.5‐65. And the maximum fine for allow‐\ning truancy is lower than the usual $1,500 cap for a Class C \nmisdemeanor in Illinois. See id. at 5/5‐4.5‐65(e). \n Hagen’s argument below was that her offenses were sim‐\nilar to “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy,” an offense \nlisted in § 4A1.2(c)(2). She renews this argument on appeal. \nHer basic point is that Guardian Allows Child Truancy is \nnothing more than aiding and abetting truancy. If that’s right, \nshe says, then allowing truancy would be at most identical in \nseriousness to the underlying offense it abets, and it couldn’t \nlogically be worse. \n We disagree. Adults who allow (or abet) truancy are more \nculpable than the truant children themselves. They are held \nto a higher standard than those in their care, and for good rea‐\nson. Children can’t generally be expected to understand the \nimportance of their school attendance. But adults should \nknow better. \n The truancy laws in Illinois reflect this reasoning. The Illi‐\nnois Code doesn’t criminalize truancy by children—it doesn’t \neven allow for any punitive action to be taken unless support‐\nive services and resources have been provided to the student. \n105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐12. But it does criminalize the allow‐\nance of truancy by a guardian. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. In‐\ndeed, “criminal proceedings under the [truancy statutes] are \ndirected against those having custody of the child, not the \nchild himself.” In re K.S.Y., 416 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ill. Ct. App. \n1981). This is a significant difference in punishment, and it in‐\ndicates different levels of seriousness between the offenses. \nWe therefore conclude that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \nis not sufficiently similar to truancy itself to merit exclusion \nunder that part of § 4A1.2(c)(2). \n\f6 No. 18‐1579 \n\n III. \n That is not to say that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \nshould necessarily count toward Hagen’s criminal history cat‐\negory. Hagen contends that even if this offense is insuffi‐\nciently similar to truancy, it should be excluded because of its \nsimilarity to other offenses marked for exclusion by \n§§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2). \n Hagen did not raise this more general argument before the \ndistrict court; there, she focused solely on the comparison be‐\ntween allowing truancy and truancy itself. Because she for‐\nfeited the point she now presses, the government is correct \nthat we can review it only for plain error. See United States v. \nGarrett, 528 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2008). Under the plain error \ntest, we “decide whether there was an error, whether it was \nplain, and whether it affected substantial rights.” Id. If so, then \n“we may exercise our discretion only if the error seriously af‐\nfects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial \nproceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). \n None of the offenses listed in §§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) is \nexactly like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. But while allow‐\ning truancy is more serious than simple truancy, it is substan‐\ntially less serious than one comparable offense listed in \n§ 4A1.2(c)(1): non‐support, which involves various failures to \nsupport or provide maintenance for a spouse or child to \nwhom one is obligated. See, e.g., 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \n Non‐support is a (c)(1) offense. Those offenses (and those \nsimilar to them) are only counted if the sentence was a term \nof probation of more than one year or a term of imprisonment \nof at least thirty days, or if the prior offense was similar to an \n\fNo. 18‐1579 7\n\ninstant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Hagen’s Guardian Al‐\nlows Child Truancy sentences were for only four days total, \nand they were not similar to the drug conspiracy conviction \nfor which she is being sentenced here.2 Thus, if her prior of‐\nfenses were similar to non‐support, the district court should \nnot have included them. \n As noted, non‐support bears an obvious resemblance to \nallowing truancy because both offenses involve a guardian’s \nfailure to fulfill her responsibilities to a minor in her care. And \nthe following analysis of the five factors from the Guidelines \ncommentary does more than confirm this resemblance—it re‐\nveals that non‐support is a significantly more serious offense \nthan Guardian Allows Child Truancy. It would plainly violate \nour common sense approach to hold that the less serious of‐\nfense must be counted while the more serious one is exempt. \n The first factor compares the punishments for each of‐\nfense. Looking at Illinois’s code, we see that a person con‐\nvicted of non‐support is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor at \nbest, and a Class 4 felony at worst. 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. \n16/15(b). The former carries a sentence of less than one year of \nimprisonment, and the latter carries a sentence of not less than \none year and not more than three years. 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. \n5/5‐4.5‐45, 5/5‐4.5‐55. These sentences are both much more \nsignificant than the 30‐day maximum imprisonment for Class \n\n\n\n \n 2 Hagen’s first Guardian Allows Child Truancy offense earned her \n\ntwo days’ imprisonment, six months of delayed court supervision, and a \nfine of $210. Her second resulted in a sentence of two weekends’ impris‐\nonment, twelve months of court supervision, and a $180 fine. Her second \nfine and both terms of imprisonment were stayed. \n\f8 No. 18‐1579 \n\nC misdemeanors like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. 730 Ill. \nComp. Stat. 5/5‐4.5‐65. \n The relative sentences suggest a considerable difference in \nthe seriousness of these two offenses as indicated by their \npunishments, which we consider under the second commen‐\ntary factor. And the fact that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \nis the less serious of the two cuts very strongly in favor of ex‐\ncluding it under § 4A1.2(c)(1). \n Under the third factor, we compare the elements of the of‐\nfense. Here again, we see similarity between the two. Guard‐\nian Allows Child Truancy involves positions of authority over \na child and a willful failure to fulfill one’s responsibilities to \nthat child. See 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Non‐support in‐\nvolves a similar, and we think more serious, failure toward a \nchild or spouse. See 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \n This comparative culpability goes toward the fourth fac‐\ntor. Refusing to support a child strikes us as a more severe \noffense than allowing truancy. Non‐support involves one \nwho “without lawful excuse, deserts or willfully refuses to \nprovide for the support or maintenance of his or her \nchild … .” Id. We think that one who deserts a child or fails to \nprovide for the child’s basic necessities is more culpable than \none who permits a child to skip school. \n The fifth factor asks us to compare the extent to which \nthese offenses suggest a likelihood of recurring criminal con‐\nduct. It isn’t entirely clear which way this cuts, since both \ncrimes could be committed under many different circum‐\nstances. But at the very least, it doesn’t seem that permitting \ntruancy is any more likely to suggest future criminal conduct \nthan is non‐support. \n\fNo. 18‐1579 9\n\n In sum, the five‐factor test confirms that Guardian Allows \nChild Truancy is similar to the offense of non‐support and \nthat § 4A1.2(c)(1) therefore required its exclusion from Ha‐\ngen’s criminal history score. Non‐support bears so many ob‐\nvious similarities to Guardian Allows Child Truancy that the \ncourt plainly ought to have considered it. And it is so clearly \nmore serious than Hagen’s offenses that we are convinced \nthat the court committed plain error. This error affected a sub‐\nstantial right—Hagen’s freedom—by increasing her recom‐\nmended sentence under the Guidelines. See Garrett, 528 F.3d \nat 527 (“A sentence based on an incorrect Guideline range \nconstitutes an error affecting substantial rights and can thus \nconstitute plain error, which requires us to remand unless we \nhave reason to believe that the error did not affect the district \ncourt’s selection of a particular sentence.”). And the fact that \nthe more serious offense of non‐support is excluded would \nmake it particularly unjust to count the similar, less serious \noffense of Guardian Allows Child Truancy toward Hagen’s \ncriminal history score. We believe that letting this error stand \nwould “seriously affect[] the fairness … of judicial proceed‐\nings,” justifying a rare exercise of our discretion in reversing \nunder a plain error standard. See Garrett, 528 F.3d at 527. \n * * * \n We REVERSE the district court’s sentence and REMAND \nfor resentencing in accordance with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Mandy L. Hagen\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐1579 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMANDY L. HAGEN, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Southern District of Illinois. \\n No. 17‐CR‐40011 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Mandy Hagen was convicted twice \\nunder Illinois law for failing to get her children to school. \\nWhen she later pleaded guilty in federal court for conspiring \\nto distribute methamphetamine, the district court counted her \\ntwo convictions for allowing child truancy toward her crimi‐\\nnal history score. That was an error. Section 4A1.2(c) of the \\nSentencing Guidelines excludes certain crimes, and those \\n“similar to” them, from a defendant’s criminal history. One of \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\nthe listed offenses is non‐support, which involves failing to \\nprovide for a child’s basic needs. Permitting truancy is a sim‐\\nilar offense, and a less serious one at that. Hagen’s criminal \\nhistory score must be recalculated, this time excluding her \\ntwo truancy‐related offenses. \\n I. \\n In 2013, Mandy Hagen joined a scheme to distribute meth‐\\namphetamine to several counties in Illinois. As part of this en‐\\nterprise, she sold meth, provided ingredients and a venue for \\nits manufacture, and collected drug debts. After a few close \\ncalls with law enforcement, Hagen was finally arraigned in \\nMay 2017. She pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy \\nto distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. \\n At sentencing, the government contended that the district \\ncourt should count Hagen’s two prior offenses for Guardian \\nAllows Child Truancy, a crime under 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐\\n10, in calculating her criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. \\n§ 4A1.1(c). Hagen had pleaded guilty to this offense twice. \\nDuring the 2013–14 school year, she allowed her child M.F. to \\nbe truant for 21 days. Then in 2015, she allowed another of her \\nchildren, B.F., to accumulate 18 unexcused absences. Includ‐\\ning these two convictions in the calculation of Hagen’s crimi‐\\nnal history score put her in a higher criminal history category \\nthan she would have otherwise been in. \\n Hagen objected to their inclusion, insisting that they fell \\nwithin § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines, which excludes certain \\nspecific offenses—and those “similar to” them—from a de‐\\nfendant’s criminal history. According to Hagen, Guardian Al‐\\nlows Child Truancy is similar enough to the listed excluded \\noffense of “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy” that it \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 3\\n\\nshould be excluded. The government responded that permit‐\\nting truancy is a more serious offense than actually being tru‐\\nant, since adult guardians are held to a higher standard of re‐\\nsponsibility than are the children in their care. The district \\ncourt sided with the government, and Hagen appeals that de‐\\ncision. \\n II. \\n Under the Guidelines, prior offenses—including misde‐\\nmeanors and petty offenses—typically increase the defend‐\\nant’s criminal history score, which in turn affects the recom‐\\nmended sentencing range. But § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines \\nprovides two lists of offenses that courts are to treat differ‐\\nently when calculating a criminal history score. Section \\n4A1.2(c)(1) instructs that \\n [s]entences for the following prior offenses and \\n offenses similar to them, by whatever name \\n they are known, are counted only if (A) the sen‐\\n tence was a term of probation of more than one \\n year or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty \\n days, or (B) the prior offense was similar to an \\n instant offense[.] \\n It then lists various offenses, including careless driving, \\ngambling, contempt of court, prostitution, and non‐support. \\nSection 4A1.2(c)(2) says that certain offenses should never be \\ncounted. Those include offenses such as fish and game viola‐\\ntions, juvenile status offenses and truancy, loitering, and \\nspeeding. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2). Like § 4A1.2(c)(1), this sec‐\\ntion states that any offenses “similar to” the enumerated of‐\\nfenses, “by whatever name they are known,” are not to be \\ncounted. Id. \\n\\f4 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\n Hagen concedes that allowing truancy is not specifically \\nlisted in either § 4A1.2(c)(1) or (c)(2). The question is whether \\nher convictions should be excluded from her criminal history \\nscore because they are “similar to” one or more of those listed \\noffenses. The Guidelines commentary on § 4A1.2(c) lists five \\nfactors for courts to consider in analyzing this issue: (1) “a \\ncomparison of punishments imposed for the listed and un‐\\nlisted offenses,” (2) “the perceived seriousness of the offense \\nas indicated by the level of punishment,” (3) “the elements of \\nthe offense,” (4) “the level of culpability involved,” and (5) \\n“the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates \\na likelihood of recurring criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 \\ncmt. 12(A). In applying these factors, courts are to take a \\n“common sense approach.” Id. \\n The Illinois Code makes it a crime for “[a]ny person hav‐\\ning custody or control of a child … to whom notice has been \\ngiven of the child’s truancy … [to] knowingly and willfully \\npermit[] such a child to persist in his truancy within that \\nschool year.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10.1 A child is truant if \\nthey are “absent without valid cause … from such attendance \\nfor more than 1% but less than 5% of the past 180 school \\ndays.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐2a. A guardian who allows \\ntruancy commits a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to \\n“30 days [of] imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $500.” 105 \\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Class C misdemeanors are the least \\nserious misdemeanors in the Illinois code. See 730 Ill. Comp. \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n 1 Though the name doesn’t seem to appear in the Illinois code, we take \\n\\nthe parties’ lead in calling this offense “Guardian Allows Child Truancy.” \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 5\\n\\nStat. 5/5‐4.5‐10, 5/5‐4.5‐65. And the maximum fine for allow‐\\ning truancy is lower than the usual $1,500 cap for a Class C \\nmisdemeanor in Illinois. See id. at 5/5‐4.5‐65(e). \\n Hagen’s argument below was that her offenses were sim‐\\nilar to “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy,” an offense \\nlisted in § 4A1.2(c)(2). She renews this argument on appeal. \\nHer basic point is that Guardian Allows Child Truancy is \\nnothing more than aiding and abetting truancy. If that’s right, \\nshe says, then allowing truancy would be at most identical in \\nseriousness to the underlying offense it abets, and it couldn’t \\nlogically be worse. \\n We disagree. Adults who allow (or abet) truancy are more \\nculpable than the truant children themselves. They are held \\nto a higher standard than those in their care, and for good rea‐\\nson. Children can’t generally be expected to understand the \\nimportance of their school attendance. But adults should \\nknow better. \\n The truancy laws in Illinois reflect this reasoning. The Illi‐\\nnois Code doesn’t criminalize truancy by children—it doesn’t \\neven allow for any punitive action to be taken unless support‐\\nive services and resources have been provided to the student. \\n105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐12. But it does criminalize the allow‐\\nance of truancy by a guardian. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. In‐\\ndeed, “criminal proceedings under the [truancy statutes] are \\ndirected against those having custody of the child, not the \\nchild himself.” In re K.S.Y., 416 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ill. Ct. App. \\n1981). This is a significant difference in punishment, and it in‐\\ndicates different levels of seriousness between the offenses. \\nWe therefore conclude that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nis not sufficiently similar to truancy itself to merit exclusion \\nunder that part of § 4A1.2(c)(2). \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\n III. \\n That is not to say that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nshould necessarily count toward Hagen’s criminal history cat‐\\negory. Hagen contends that even if this offense is insuffi‐\\nciently similar to truancy, it should be excluded because of its \\nsimilarity to other offenses marked for exclusion by \\n§§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2). \\n Hagen did not raise this more general argument before the \\ndistrict court; there, she focused solely on the comparison be‐\\ntween allowing truancy and truancy itself. Because she for‐\\nfeited the point she now presses, the government is correct \\nthat we can review it only for plain error. See United States v. \\nGarrett, 528 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2008). Under the plain error \\ntest, we “decide whether there was an error, whether it was \\nplain, and whether it affected substantial rights.” Id. If so, then \\n“we may exercise our discretion only if the error seriously af‐\\nfects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial \\nproceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). \\n None of the offenses listed in §§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) is \\nexactly like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. But while allow‐\\ning truancy is more serious than simple truancy, it is substan‐\\ntially less serious than one comparable offense listed in \\n§ 4A1.2(c)(1): non‐support, which involves various failures to \\nsupport or provide maintenance for a spouse or child to \\nwhom one is obligated. See, e.g., 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \\n Non‐support is a (c)(1) offense. Those offenses (and those \\nsimilar to them) are only counted if the sentence was a term \\nof probation of more than one year or a term of imprisonment \\nof at least thirty days, or if the prior offense was similar to an \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 7\\n\\ninstant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Hagen’s Guardian Al‐\\nlows Child Truancy sentences were for only four days total, \\nand they were not similar to the drug conspiracy conviction \\nfor which she is being sentenced here.2 Thus, if her prior of‐\\nfenses were similar to non‐support, the district court should \\nnot have included them. \\n As noted, non‐support bears an obvious resemblance to \\nallowing truancy because both offenses involve a guardian’s \\nfailure to fulfill her responsibilities to a minor in her care. And \\nthe following analysis of the five factors from the Guidelines \\ncommentary does more than confirm this resemblance—it re‐\\nveals that non‐support is a significantly more serious offense \\nthan Guardian Allows Child Truancy. It would plainly violate \\nour common sense approach to hold that the less serious of‐\\nfense must be counted while the more serious one is exempt. \\n The first factor compares the punishments for each of‐\\nfense. Looking at Illinois’s code, we see that a person con‐\\nvicted of non‐support is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor at \\nbest, and a Class 4 felony at worst. 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. \\n16/15(b). The former carries a sentence of less than one year of \\nimprisonment, and the latter carries a sentence of not less than \\none year and not more than three years. 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. \\n5/5‐4.5‐45, 5/5‐4.5‐55. These sentences are both much more \\nsignificant than the 30‐day maximum imprisonment for Class \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n 2 Hagen’s first Guardian Allows Child Truancy offense earned her \\n\\ntwo days’ imprisonment, six months of delayed court supervision, and a \\nfine of $210. Her second resulted in a sentence of two weekends’ impris‐\\nonment, twelve months of court supervision, and a $180 fine. Her second \\nfine and both terms of imprisonment were stayed. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\nC misdemeanors like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. 730 Ill. \\nComp. Stat. 5/5‐4.5‐65. \\n The relative sentences suggest a considerable difference in \\nthe seriousness of these two offenses as indicated by their \\npunishments, which we consider under the second commen‐\\ntary factor. And the fact that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nis the less serious of the two cuts very strongly in favor of ex‐\\ncluding it under § 4A1.2(c)(1). \\n Under the third factor, we compare the elements of the of‐\\nfense. Here again, we see similarity between the two. Guard‐\\nian Allows Child Truancy involves positions of authority over \\na child and a willful failure to fulfill one’s responsibilities to \\nthat child. See 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Non‐support in‐\\nvolves a similar, and we think more serious, failure toward a \\nchild or spouse. See 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \\n This comparative culpability goes toward the fourth fac‐\\ntor. Refusing to support a child strikes us as a more severe \\noffense than allowing truancy. Non‐support involves one \\nwho “without lawful excuse, deserts or willfully refuses to \\nprovide for the support or maintenance of his or her \\nchild … .” Id. We think that one who deserts a child or fails to \\nprovide for the child’s basic necessities is more culpable than \\none who permits a child to skip school. \\n The fifth factor asks us to compare the extent to which \\nthese offenses suggest a likelihood of recurring criminal con‐\\nduct. It isn’t entirely clear which way this cuts, since both \\ncrimes could be committed under many different circum‐\\nstances. But at the very least, it doesn’t seem that permitting \\ntruancy is any more likely to suggest future criminal conduct \\nthan is non‐support. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 9\\n\\n In sum, the five‐factor test confirms that Guardian Allows \\nChild Truancy is similar to the offense of non‐support and \\nthat § 4A1.2(c)(1) therefore required its exclusion from Ha‐\\ngen’s criminal history score. Non‐support bears so many ob‐\\nvious similarities to Guardian Allows Child Truancy that the \\ncourt plainly ought to have considered it. And it is so clearly \\nmore serious than Hagen’s offenses that we are convinced \\nthat the court committed plain error. This error affected a sub‐\\nstantial right—Hagen’s freedom—by increasing her recom‐\\nmended sentence under the Guidelines. See Garrett, 528 F.3d \\nat 527 (“A sentence based on an incorrect Guideline range \\nconstitutes an error affecting substantial rights and can thus \\nconstitute plain error, which requires us to remand unless we \\nhave reason to believe that the error did not affect the district \\ncourt’s selection of a particular sentence.”). And the fact that \\nthe more serious offense of non‐support is excluded would \\nmake it particularly unjust to count the similar, less serious \\noffense of Guardian Allows Child Truancy toward Hagen’s \\ncriminal history score. We believe that letting this error stand \\nwould “seriously affect[] the fairness … of judicial proceed‐\\nings,” justifying a rare exercise of our discretion in reversing \\nunder a plain error standard. See Garrett, 528 F.3d at 527. \\n * * * \\n We REVERSE the district court’s sentence and REMAND \\nfor resentencing in accordance with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":171,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578326,"string":"4,578,326"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"S. David GOLDBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"S. David Goldberg v. Michael Frerichs"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2432"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Easterbrook, Kanne, Rovner\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-2432\\nS. DAVID GOLDBERG,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 3792 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED DECEMBER 14, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. An earlier opinion in this\\ncase concluded that people whose property is taken into cus-\\ntody by Illinois under the state’s Disposition of Unclaimed\\nProperty Act, 765 ILCS 1026/15-607, are entitled to receive\\nthe time value of their property (that is, interest or other\\nearnings), less reasonable custodial fees. Kolton v. Frerichs,\\n869 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735\\nF.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013). On remand the district court de-\\n\\f2 No. 18-2432\\n\\nclined to certify the proposed class, ruling that, despite what\\nour opinion said, owners of property in the state’s custody\\nare entitled to be compensated for the time value of money\\nonly if the property was earning interest at the moment the\\nstate took it into custody. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51062 (N.D.\\nIll. Mar. 28, 2018). This meant that the class had internal di-\\nvisions that made certification inappropriate. The court then\\ngranted summary judgment to the state on the claim of S.\\nDavid Goldberg, one of the putative class representatives,\\nwhose property had not been earning interest before the\\nstate took custody of it. The judge entered a partial final\\njudgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), leading to this appeal.\\n For the proposition that the owner receives the proper-\\nty’s time value only if the property was earning interest in\\nprivate hands the district court relied principally on Cwik v.\\nTopinka, 389 Ill. App. 3d 21 (2009), a state court’s decision\\nthat precedes both Kolton and Cerajeski and interprets a state\\nstatute rather than the Takings Clause of the Constitution.\\nThe proposition is untenable, as we have already explained:\\n The Supreme Court has held that the Takings Clause protects the\\n time value of money just as much as it does money itself. Brown\\n v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216, 235 (2003); Phillips\\n v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 165–72 (1998); Webb’s\\n Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 162–65 (1980).\\n In Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013), we applied\\n these precedents to an Indiana statute like the Illinois statute in\\n this case. We held that a state may not take custody of property\\n and retain income that the property earns. A state may charge a\\n bookkeeping fee, which for small accounts may exceed the prop-\\n erty’s time value, but must allow the owner the benefit of the\\n property’s earnings, however large or small they turn out to be.\\n Id. at 578–80.\\n\\fNo. 18-2432 3\\n\\nKolton, 869 F.3d at 533. The property’s owner is entitled to\\n“income that the property earns” less custodial fees; what\\nthe property earns in the state’s hands does not depend on\\nwhat it had been earning in the owner’s hands.\\n To see this, consider a simple example. Owner puts a rare\\ncoin in a safe deposit box, then neglects to pay the annual\\nrental. Bank turns the coin over to the state under the Dispo-\\nsition of Unclaimed Property Act. The state sells the coin and\\ninvests the proceeds. The coin was not earning interest while\\nin the safe deposit box but was an investment property:\\nOwner hoped that its market price would rise. If the state\\nkept the coin and returned it to Owner on demand, then the\\nstate would not owe interest; Owner could sell the coin and\\nobtain any change in value while it was in the state’s custo-\\ndy. But if the state sells the coin and cuts off the possibility of\\nappreciation, then Owner is entitled to the earnings on the\\ninvested cash as the best substitute. The fact that the coin\\nwas not earning interest in the safe deposit box would not\\ndetract from the fact that its price could rise. The loss of that\\ntime value is compensated by giving Owner the benefit of\\ninterim earnings.\\n Goldberg did not have a coin. He had a check—or, ra-\\nther, the payor that had made out a check to Goldberg had\\nthe instrument because he had not claimed it, and the payor\\ndelivered it to the state when the statute required. A check\\nrepresents cash, which cannot appreciate as a coin, stamp, or\\npainting might. But the principle is the same: cash has time\\nvalue even if not invested. Holding cash is sensible for a per-\\nson who fears that prices of stocks, bonds, and other invest-\\nments will decline. If the state turns the check into cash and\\nmakes an investment on the owner’s behalf (and against the\\n\\f4 No. 18-2432\\n\\nwishes of someone who did not want to invest), then it is vi-\\ntal to turn any gain over to the owner. The Takings Clause\\ndoes not set up a situation in which someone who wanted to\\nbe “in cash” bears the risk of loss as market conditions\\nchange without any prospect of offseming gain. That would\\nmake the owner worse off. (To put this differently, cash has\\nan option value—the option to invest or refrain from invest-\\ning—that is lost if the state invests without the owner’s con-\\nsent. That loss has a compensable value.)\\n Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington holds that a state\\nneed not hand over earnings if the amount of the principal is\\nso small that (in the Court’s words) it “cannot earn net inter-\\nest”—in other words, when administrative expenses exceed\\nthe return on investment. 538 U.S. at 224. The statutory sys-\\ntem under review in Brown required lawyers to turn over\\nsmall client trust funds so that they could be pooled, and\\nwhen pooled earn net interest. The principal would be re-\\nturned to counsel when they needed to disburse it to clients;\\nthe state kept the interest for other uses. The Justices con-\\ncluded that this system did not offend the Takings Clause\\nbecause, by definition, the money could not have earned a\\nnet return in the absence of the pooling and the owner could\\nnot have lost anything. No loss, no need for compensation.\\nId. at 235–41. Illinois could use Brown on remand to contend\\nthat it does not owe interest on small amounts, such as the\\n$100 it held on behalf of Goldberg. Amounts as slight as $100\\nprobably cannot earn net interest. But this has nothing to do\\nwith how the owner held or invested the money or other\\nproperty before it came into the state’s hands.\\n It may be hard to administer the line established by\\nBrown. That will be among the district court’s tasks if the\\n\\fNo. 18-2432 5\\n\\nstate contends on remand that particular parcels in its custo-\\ndy could not earn net interest in private hands. All we decide\\ntoday is that it does not mamer under Brown, or any other\\ndecision by the Supreme Court or this court, whether prop-\\nerty that is able to earn net interest was in an interest-bearing\\naccount before its transfer to the state. (This conclusion also\\nmay lead the district court to reconsider its ruling on class\\ncertification.)\\n The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for\\nproceedings consistent with Kolton and this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355579/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578326/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: S. David GOLDBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-2432\nS. DAVID GOLDBERG,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\nMICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 C 3792 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED DECEMBER 14, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. An earlier opinion in this\ncase concluded that people whose property is taken into cus-\ntody by Illinois under the state’s Disposition of Unclaimed\nProperty Act, 765 ILCS 1026/15-607, are entitled to receive\nthe time value of their property (that is, interest or other\nearnings), less reasonable custodial fees. Kolton v. Frerichs,\n869 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735\nF.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013). On remand the district court de-\n\f2 No. 18-2432\n\nclined to certify the proposed class, ruling that, despite what\nour opinion said, owners of property in the state’s custody\nare entitled to be compensated for the time value of money\nonly if the property was earning interest at the moment the\nstate took it into custody. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51062 (N.D.\nIll. Mar. 28, 2018). This meant that the class had internal di-\nvisions that made certification inappropriate. The court then\ngranted summary judgment to the state on the claim of S.\nDavid Goldberg, one of the putative class representatives,\nwhose property had not been earning interest before the\nstate took custody of it. The judge entered a partial final\njudgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), leading to this appeal.\n For the proposition that the owner receives the proper-\nty’s time value only if the property was earning interest in\nprivate hands the district court relied principally on Cwik v.\nTopinka, 389 Ill. App. 3d 21 (2009), a state court’s decision\nthat precedes both Kolton and Cerajeski and interprets a state\nstatute rather than the Takings Clause of the Constitution.\nThe proposition is untenable, as we have already explained:\n The Supreme Court has held that the Takings Clause protects the\n time value of money just as much as it does money itself. Brown\n v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216, 235 (2003); Phillips\n v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 165–72 (1998); Webb’s\n Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 162–65 (1980).\n In Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013), we applied\n these precedents to an Indiana statute like the Illinois statute in\n this case. We held that a state may not take custody of property\n and retain income that the property earns. A state may charge a\n bookkeeping fee, which for small accounts may exceed the prop-\n erty’s time value, but must allow the owner the benefit of the\n property’s earnings, however large or small they turn out to be.\n Id. at 578–80.\n\fNo. 18-2432 3\n\nKolton, 869 F.3d at 533. The property’s owner is entitled to\n“income that the property earns” less custodial fees; what\nthe property earns in the state’s hands does not depend on\nwhat it had been earning in the owner’s hands.\n To see this, consider a simple example. Owner puts a rare\ncoin in a safe deposit box, then neglects to pay the annual\nrental. Bank turns the coin over to the state under the Dispo-\nsition of Unclaimed Property Act. The state sells the coin and\ninvests the proceeds. The coin was not earning interest while\nin the safe deposit box but was an investment property:\nOwner hoped that its market price would rise. If the state\nkept the coin and returned it to Owner on demand, then the\nstate would not owe interest; Owner could sell the coin and\nobtain any change in value while it was in the state’s custo-\ndy. But if the state sells the coin and cuts off the possibility of\nappreciation, then Owner is entitled to the earnings on the\ninvested cash as the best substitute. The fact that the coin\nwas not earning interest in the safe deposit box would not\ndetract from the fact that its price could rise. The loss of that\ntime value is compensated by giving Owner the benefit of\ninterim earnings.\n Goldberg did not have a coin. He had a check—or, ra-\nther, the payor that had made out a check to Goldberg had\nthe instrument because he had not claimed it, and the payor\ndelivered it to the state when the statute required. A check\nrepresents cash, which cannot appreciate as a coin, stamp, or\npainting might. But the principle is the same: cash has time\nvalue even if not invested. Holding cash is sensible for a per-\nson who fears that prices of stocks, bonds, and other invest-\nments will decline. If the state turns the check into cash and\nmakes an investment on the owner’s behalf (and against the\n\f4 No. 18-2432\n\nwishes of someone who did not want to invest), then it is vi-\ntal to turn any gain over to the owner. The Takings Clause\ndoes not set up a situation in which someone who wanted to\nbe “in cash” bears the risk of loss as market conditions\nchange without any prospect of offseming gain. That would\nmake the owner worse off. (To put this differently, cash has\nan option value—the option to invest or refrain from invest-\ning—that is lost if the state invests without the owner’s con-\nsent. That loss has a compensable value.)\n Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington holds that a state\nneed not hand over earnings if the amount of the principal is\nso small that (in the Court’s words) it “cannot earn net inter-\nest”—in other words, when administrative expenses exceed\nthe return on investment. 538 U.S. at 224. The statutory sys-\ntem under review in Brown required lawyers to turn over\nsmall client trust funds so that they could be pooled, and\nwhen pooled earn net interest. The principal would be re-\nturned to counsel when they needed to disburse it to clients;\nthe state kept the interest for other uses. The Justices con-\ncluded that this system did not offend the Takings Clause\nbecause, by definition, the money could not have earned a\nnet return in the absence of the pooling and the owner could\nnot have lost anything. No loss, no need for compensation.\nId. at 235–41. Illinois could use Brown on remand to contend\nthat it does not owe interest on small amounts, such as the\n$100 it held on behalf of Goldberg. Amounts as slight as $100\nprobably cannot earn net interest. But this has nothing to do\nwith how the owner held or invested the money or other\nproperty before it came into the state’s hands.\n It may be hard to administer the line established by\nBrown. That will be among the district court’s tasks if the\n\fNo. 18-2432 5\n\nstate contends on remand that particular parcels in its custo-\ndy could not earn net interest in private hands. All we decide\ntoday is that it does not mamer under Brown, or any other\ndecision by the Supreme Court or this court, whether prop-\nerty that is able to earn net interest was in an interest-bearing\naccount before its transfer to the state. (This conclusion also\nmay lead the district court to reconsider its ruling on class\ncertification.)\n The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for\nproceedings consistent with Kolton and this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: S. David GOLDBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-2432\\nS. DAVID GOLDBERG,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 3792 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED DECEMBER 14, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. An earlier opinion in this\\ncase concluded that people whose property is taken into cus-\\ntody by Illinois under the state’s Disposition of Unclaimed\\nProperty Act, 765 ILCS 1026/15-607, are entitled to receive\\nthe time value of their property (that is, interest or other\\nearnings), less reasonable custodial fees. Kolton v. Frerichs,\\n869 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735\\nF.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013). On remand the district court de-\\n\\f2 No. 18-2432\\n\\nclined to certify the proposed class, ruling that, despite what\\nour opinion said, owners of property in the state’s custody\\nare entitled to be compensated for the time value of money\\nonly if the property was earning interest at the moment the\\nstate took it into custody. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51062 (N.D.\\nIll. Mar. 28, 2018). This meant that the class had internal di-\\nvisions that made certification inappropriate. The court then\\ngranted summary judgment to the state on the claim of S.\\nDavid Goldberg, one of the putative class representatives,\\nwhose property had not been earning interest before the\\nstate took custody of it. The judge entered a partial final\\njudgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), leading to this appeal.\\n For the proposition that the owner receives the proper-\\nty’s time value only if the property was earning interest in\\nprivate hands the district court relied principally on Cwik v.\\nTopinka, 389 Ill. App. 3d 21 (2009), a state court’s decision\\nthat precedes both Kolton and Cerajeski and interprets a state\\nstatute rather than the Takings Clause of the Constitution.\\nThe proposition is untenable, as we have already explained:\\n The Supreme Court has held that the Takings Clause protects the\\n time value of money just as much as it does money itself. Brown\\n v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216, 235 (2003); Phillips\\n v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 165–72 (1998); Webb’s\\n Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 162–65 (1980).\\n In Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013), we applied\\n these precedents to an Indiana statute like the Illinois statute in\\n this case. We held that a state may not take custody of property\\n and retain income that the property earns. A state may charge a\\n bookkeeping fee, which for small accounts may exceed the prop-\\n erty’s time value, but must allow the owner the benefit of the\\n property’s earnings, however large or small they turn out to be.\\n Id. at 578–80.\\n\\fNo. 18-2432 3\\n\\nKolton, 869 F.3d at 533. The property’s owner is entitled to\\n“income that the property earns” less custodial fees; what\\nthe property earns in the state’s hands does not depend on\\nwhat it had been earning in the owner’s hands.\\n To see this, consider a simple example. Owner puts a rare\\ncoin in a safe deposit box, then neglects to pay the annual\\nrental. Bank turns the coin over to the state under the Dispo-\\nsition of Unclaimed Property Act. The state sells the coin and\\ninvests the proceeds. The coin was not earning interest while\\nin the safe deposit box but was an investment property:\\nOwner hoped that its market price would rise. If the state\\nkept the coin and returned it to Owner on demand, then the\\nstate would not owe interest; Owner could sell the coin and\\nobtain any change in value while it was in the state’s custo-\\ndy. But if the state sells the coin and cuts off the possibility of\\nappreciation, then Owner is entitled to the earnings on the\\ninvested cash as the best substitute. The fact that the coin\\nwas not earning interest in the safe deposit box would not\\ndetract from the fact that its price could rise. The loss of that\\ntime value is compensated by giving Owner the benefit of\\ninterim earnings.\\n Goldberg did not have a coin. He had a check—or, ra-\\nther, the payor that had made out a check to Goldberg had\\nthe instrument because he had not claimed it, and the payor\\ndelivered it to the state when the statute required. A check\\nrepresents cash, which cannot appreciate as a coin, stamp, or\\npainting might. But the principle is the same: cash has time\\nvalue even if not invested. Holding cash is sensible for a per-\\nson who fears that prices of stocks, bonds, and other invest-\\nments will decline. If the state turns the check into cash and\\nmakes an investment on the owner’s behalf (and against the\\n\\f4 No. 18-2432\\n\\nwishes of someone who did not want to invest), then it is vi-\\ntal to turn any gain over to the owner. The Takings Clause\\ndoes not set up a situation in which someone who wanted to\\nbe “in cash” bears the risk of loss as market conditions\\nchange without any prospect of offseming gain. That would\\nmake the owner worse off. (To put this differently, cash has\\nan option value—the option to invest or refrain from invest-\\ning—that is lost if the state invests without the owner’s con-\\nsent. That loss has a compensable value.)\\n Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington holds that a state\\nneed not hand over earnings if the amount of the principal is\\nso small that (in the Court’s words) it “cannot earn net inter-\\nest”—in other words, when administrative expenses exceed\\nthe return on investment. 538 U.S. at 224. The statutory sys-\\ntem under review in Brown required lawyers to turn over\\nsmall client trust funds so that they could be pooled, and\\nwhen pooled earn net interest. The principal would be re-\\nturned to counsel when they needed to disburse it to clients;\\nthe state kept the interest for other uses. The Justices con-\\ncluded that this system did not offend the Takings Clause\\nbecause, by definition, the money could not have earned a\\nnet return in the absence of the pooling and the owner could\\nnot have lost anything. No loss, no need for compensation.\\nId. at 235–41. Illinois could use Brown on remand to contend\\nthat it does not owe interest on small amounts, such as the\\n$100 it held on behalf of Goldberg. Amounts as slight as $100\\nprobably cannot earn net interest. But this has nothing to do\\nwith how the owner held or invested the money or other\\nproperty before it came into the state’s hands.\\n It may be hard to administer the line established by\\nBrown. That will be among the district court’s tasks if the\\n\\fNo. 18-2432 5\\n\\nstate contends on remand that particular parcels in its custo-\\ndy could not earn net interest in private hands. All we decide\\ntoday is that it does not mamer under Brown, or any other\\ndecision by the Supreme Court or this court, whether prop-\\nerty that is able to earn net interest was in an interest-bearing\\naccount before its transfer to the state. (This conclusion also\\nmay lead the district court to reconsider its ruling on class\\ncertification.)\\n The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for\\nproceedings consistent with Kolton and this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":172,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578368,"string":"4,578,368"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Mandy L. Hagen"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1579"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐1579 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMANDY L. HAGEN, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Southern District of Illinois. \\n No. 17‐CR‐40011 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Mandy Hagen was convicted twice \\nunder Illinois law for failing to get her children to school. \\nWhen she later pleaded guilty in federal court for conspiring \\nto distribute methamphetamine, the district court counted her \\ntwo convictions for allowing child truancy toward her crimi‐\\nnal history score. That was an error. Section 4A1.2(c) of the \\nSentencing Guidelines excludes certain crimes, and those \\n“similar to” them, from a defendant’s criminal history. One of \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\nthe listed offenses is non‐support, which involves failing to \\nprovide for a child’s basic needs. Permitting truancy is a sim‐\\nilar offense, and a less serious one at that. Hagen’s criminal \\nhistory score must be recalculated, this time excluding her \\ntwo truancy‐related offenses. \\n I. \\n In 2013, Mandy Hagen joined a scheme to distribute meth‐\\namphetamine to several counties in Illinois. As part of this en‐\\nterprise, she sold meth, provided ingredients and a venue for \\nits manufacture, and collected drug debts. After a few close \\ncalls with law enforcement, Hagen was finally arraigned in \\nMay 2017. She pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy \\nto distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. \\n At sentencing, the government contended that the district \\ncourt should count Hagen’s two prior offenses for Guardian \\nAllows Child Truancy, a crime under 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐\\n10, in calculating her criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. \\n§ 4A1.1(c). Hagen had pleaded guilty to this offense twice. \\nDuring the 2013–14 school year, she allowed her child M.F. to \\nbe truant for 21 days. Then in 2015, she allowed another of her \\nchildren, B.F., to accumulate 18 unexcused absences. Includ‐\\ning these two convictions in the calculation of Hagen’s crimi‐\\nnal history score put her in a higher criminal history category \\nthan she would have otherwise been in. \\n Hagen objected to their inclusion, insisting that they fell \\nwithin § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines, which excludes certain \\nspecific offenses—and those “similar to” them—from a de‐\\nfendant’s criminal history. According to Hagen, Guardian Al‐\\nlows Child Truancy is similar enough to the listed excluded \\noffense of “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy” that it \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 3\\n\\nshould be excluded. The government responded that permit‐\\nting truancy is a more serious offense than actually being tru‐\\nant, since adult guardians are held to a higher standard of re‐\\nsponsibility than are the children in their care. The district \\ncourt sided with the government, and Hagen appeals that de‐\\ncision. \\n II. \\n Under the Guidelines, prior offenses—including misde‐\\nmeanors and petty offenses—typically increase the defend‐\\nant’s criminal history score, which in turn affects the recom‐\\nmended sentencing range. But § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines \\nprovides two lists of offenses that courts are to treat differ‐\\nently when calculating a criminal history score. Section \\n4A1.2(c)(1) instructs that \\n [s]entences for the following prior offenses and \\n offenses similar to them, by whatever name \\n they are known, are counted only if (A) the sen‐\\n tence was a term of probation of more than one \\n year or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty \\n days, or (B) the prior offense was similar to an \\n instant offense[.] \\n It then lists various offenses, including careless driving, \\ngambling, contempt of court, prostitution, and non‐support. \\nSection 4A1.2(c)(2) says that certain offenses should never be \\ncounted. Those include offenses such as fish and game viola‐\\ntions, juvenile status offenses and truancy, loitering, and \\nspeeding. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2). Like § 4A1.2(c)(1), this sec‐\\ntion states that any offenses “similar to” the enumerated of‐\\nfenses, “by whatever name they are known,” are not to be \\ncounted. Id. \\n\\f4 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\n Hagen concedes that allowing truancy is not specifically \\nlisted in either § 4A1.2(c)(1) or (c)(2). The question is whether \\nher convictions should be excluded from her criminal history \\nscore because they are “similar to” one or more of those listed \\noffenses. The Guidelines commentary on § 4A1.2(c) lists five \\nfactors for courts to consider in analyzing this issue: (1) “a \\ncomparison of punishments imposed for the listed and un‐\\nlisted offenses,” (2) “the perceived seriousness of the offense \\nas indicated by the level of punishment,” (3) “the elements of \\nthe offense,” (4) “the level of culpability involved,” and (5) \\n“the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates \\na likelihood of recurring criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 \\ncmt. 12(A). In applying these factors, courts are to take a \\n“common sense approach.” Id. \\n The Illinois Code makes it a crime for “[a]ny person hav‐\\ning custody or control of a child … to whom notice has been \\ngiven of the child’s truancy … [to] knowingly and willfully \\npermit[] such a child to persist in his truancy within that \\nschool year.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10.1 A child is truant if \\nthey are “absent without valid cause … from such attendance \\nfor more than 1% but less than 5% of the past 180 school \\ndays.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐2a. A guardian who allows \\ntruancy commits a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to \\n“30 days [of] imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $500.” 105 \\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Class C misdemeanors are the least \\nserious misdemeanors in the Illinois code. See 730 Ill. Comp. \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n 1 Though the name doesn’t seem to appear in the Illinois code, we take \\n\\nthe parties’ lead in calling this offense “Guardian Allows Child Truancy.” \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 5\\n\\nStat. 5/5‐4.5‐10, 5/5‐4.5‐65. And the maximum fine for allow‐\\ning truancy is lower than the usual $1,500 cap for a Class C \\nmisdemeanor in Illinois. See id. at 5/5‐4.5‐65(e). \\n Hagen’s argument below was that her offenses were sim‐\\nilar to “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy,” an offense \\nlisted in § 4A1.2(c)(2). She renews this argument on appeal. \\nHer basic point is that Guardian Allows Child Truancy is \\nnothing more than aiding and abetting truancy. If that’s right, \\nshe says, then allowing truancy would be at most identical in \\nseriousness to the underlying offense it abets, and it couldn’t \\nlogically be worse. \\n We disagree. Adults who allow (or abet) truancy are more \\nculpable than the truant children themselves. They are held \\nto a higher standard than those in their care, and for good rea‐\\nson. Children can’t generally be expected to understand the \\nimportance of their school attendance. But adults should \\nknow better. \\n The truancy laws in Illinois reflect this reasoning. The Illi‐\\nnois Code doesn’t criminalize truancy by children—it doesn’t \\neven allow for any punitive action to be taken unless support‐\\nive services and resources have been provided to the student. \\n105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐12. But it does criminalize the allow‐\\nance of truancy by a guardian. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. In‐\\ndeed, “criminal proceedings under the [truancy statutes] are \\ndirected against those having custody of the child, not the \\nchild himself.” In re K.S.Y., 416 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ill. Ct. App. \\n1981). This is a significant difference in punishment, and it in‐\\ndicates different levels of seriousness between the offenses. \\nWe therefore conclude that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nis not sufficiently similar to truancy itself to merit exclusion \\nunder that part of § 4A1.2(c)(2). \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\n III. \\n That is not to say that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nshould necessarily count toward Hagen’s criminal history cat‐\\negory. Hagen contends that even if this offense is insuffi‐\\nciently similar to truancy, it should be excluded because of its \\nsimilarity to other offenses marked for exclusion by \\n§§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2). \\n Hagen did not raise this more general argument before the \\ndistrict court; there, she focused solely on the comparison be‐\\ntween allowing truancy and truancy itself. Because she for‐\\nfeited the point she now presses, the government is correct \\nthat we can review it only for plain error. See United States v. \\nGarrett, 528 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2008). Under the plain error \\ntest, we “decide whether there was an error, whether it was \\nplain, and whether it affected substantial rights.” Id. If so, then \\n“we may exercise our discretion only if the error seriously af‐\\nfects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial \\nproceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). \\n None of the offenses listed in §§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) is \\nexactly like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. But while allow‐\\ning truancy is more serious than simple truancy, it is substan‐\\ntially less serious than one comparable offense listed in \\n§ 4A1.2(c)(1): non‐support, which involves various failures to \\nsupport or provide maintenance for a spouse or child to \\nwhom one is obligated. See, e.g., 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \\n Non‐support is a (c)(1) offense. Those offenses (and those \\nsimilar to them) are only counted if the sentence was a term \\nof probation of more than one year or a term of imprisonment \\nof at least thirty days, or if the prior offense was similar to an \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 7\\n\\ninstant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Hagen’s Guardian Al‐\\nlows Child Truancy sentences were for only four days total, \\nand they were not similar to the drug conspiracy conviction \\nfor which she is being sentenced here.2 Thus, if her prior of‐\\nfenses were similar to non‐support, the district court should \\nnot have included them. \\n As noted, non‐support bears an obvious resemblance to \\nallowing truancy because both offenses involve a guardian’s \\nfailure to fulfill her responsibilities to a minor in her care. And \\nthe following analysis of the five factors from the Guidelines \\ncommentary does more than confirm this resemblance—it re‐\\nveals that non‐support is a significantly more serious offense \\nthan Guardian Allows Child Truancy. It would plainly violate \\nour common sense approach to hold that the less serious of‐\\nfense must be counted while the more serious one is exempt. \\n The first factor compares the punishments for each of‐\\nfense. Looking at Illinois’s code, we see that a person con‐\\nvicted of non‐support is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor at \\nbest, and a Class 4 felony at worst. 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. \\n16/15(b). The former carries a sentence of less than one year of \\nimprisonment, and the latter carries a sentence of not less than \\none year and not more than three years. 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. \\n5/5‐4.5‐45, 5/5‐4.5‐55. These sentences are both much more \\nsignificant than the 30‐day maximum imprisonment for Class \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n 2 Hagen’s first Guardian Allows Child Truancy offense earned her \\n\\ntwo days’ imprisonment, six months of delayed court supervision, and a \\nfine of $210. Her second resulted in a sentence of two weekends’ impris‐\\nonment, twelve months of court supervision, and a $180 fine. Her second \\nfine and both terms of imprisonment were stayed. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\nC misdemeanors like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. 730 Ill. \\nComp. Stat. 5/5‐4.5‐65. \\n The relative sentences suggest a considerable difference in \\nthe seriousness of these two offenses as indicated by their \\npunishments, which we consider under the second commen‐\\ntary factor. And the fact that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nis the less serious of the two cuts very strongly in favor of ex‐\\ncluding it under § 4A1.2(c)(1). \\n Under the third factor, we compare the elements of the of‐\\nfense. Here again, we see similarity between the two. Guard‐\\nian Allows Child Truancy involves positions of authority over \\na child and a willful failure to fulfill one’s responsibilities to \\nthat child. See 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Non‐support in‐\\nvolves a similar, and we think more serious, failure toward a \\nchild or spouse. See 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \\n This comparative culpability goes toward the fourth fac‐\\ntor. Refusing to support a child strikes us as a more severe \\noffense than allowing truancy. Non‐support involves one \\nwho “without lawful excuse, deserts or willfully refuses to \\nprovide for the support or maintenance of his or her \\nchild … .” Id. We think that one who deserts a child or fails to \\nprovide for the child’s basic necessities is more culpable than \\none who permits a child to skip school. \\n The fifth factor asks us to compare the extent to which \\nthese offenses suggest a likelihood of recurring criminal con‐\\nduct. It isn’t entirely clear which way this cuts, since both \\ncrimes could be committed under many different circum‐\\nstances. But at the very least, it doesn’t seem that permitting \\ntruancy is any more likely to suggest future criminal conduct \\nthan is non‐support. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 9\\n\\n In sum, the five‐factor test confirms that Guardian Allows \\nChild Truancy is similar to the offense of non‐support and \\nthat § 4A1.2(c)(1) therefore required its exclusion from Ha‐\\ngen’s criminal history score. Non‐support bears so many ob‐\\nvious similarities to Guardian Allows Child Truancy that the \\ncourt plainly ought to have considered it. And it is so clearly \\nmore serious than Hagen’s offenses that we are convinced \\nthat the court committed plain error. This error affected a sub‐\\nstantial right—Hagen’s freedom—by increasing her recom‐\\nmended sentence under the Guidelines. See Garrett, 528 F.3d \\nat 527 (“A sentence based on an incorrect Guideline range \\nconstitutes an error affecting substantial rights and can thus \\nconstitute plain error, which requires us to remand unless we \\nhave reason to believe that the error did not affect the district \\ncourt’s selection of a particular sentence.”). And the fact that \\nthe more serious offense of non‐support is excluded would \\nmake it particularly unjust to count the similar, less serious \\noffense of Guardian Allows Child Truancy toward Hagen’s \\ncriminal history score. We believe that letting this error stand \\nwould “seriously affect[] the fairness … of judicial proceed‐\\nings,” justifying a rare exercise of our discretion in reversing \\nunder a plain error standard. See Garrett, 528 F.3d at 527. \\n * * * \\n We REVERSE the district court’s sentence and REMAND \\nfor resentencing in accordance with this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355621/\", \"author_raw\": \"BARRETT, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578368/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Mandy L. Hagen\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐1579 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \n v. \n\nMANDY L. HAGEN, \n Defendant‐Appellant. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Southern District of Illinois. \n No. 17‐CR‐40011 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Mandy Hagen was convicted twice \nunder Illinois law for failing to get her children to school. \nWhen she later pleaded guilty in federal court for conspiring \nto distribute methamphetamine, the district court counted her \ntwo convictions for allowing child truancy toward her crimi‐\nnal history score. That was an error. Section 4A1.2(c) of the \nSentencing Guidelines excludes certain crimes, and those \n“similar to” them, from a defendant’s criminal history. One of \n\f2 No. 18‐1579 \n\nthe listed offenses is non‐support, which involves failing to \nprovide for a child’s basic needs. Permitting truancy is a sim‐\nilar offense, and a less serious one at that. Hagen’s criminal \nhistory score must be recalculated, this time excluding her \ntwo truancy‐related offenses. \n I. \n In 2013, Mandy Hagen joined a scheme to distribute meth‐\namphetamine to several counties in Illinois. As part of this en‐\nterprise, she sold meth, provided ingredients and a venue for \nits manufacture, and collected drug debts. After a few close \ncalls with law enforcement, Hagen was finally arraigned in \nMay 2017. She pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy \nto distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. \n At sentencing, the government contended that the district \ncourt should count Hagen’s two prior offenses for Guardian \nAllows Child Truancy, a crime under 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐\n10, in calculating her criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. \n§ 4A1.1(c). Hagen had pleaded guilty to this offense twice. \nDuring the 2013–14 school year, she allowed her child M.F. to \nbe truant for 21 days. Then in 2015, she allowed another of her \nchildren, B.F., to accumulate 18 unexcused absences. Includ‐\ning these two convictions in the calculation of Hagen’s crimi‐\nnal history score put her in a higher criminal history category \nthan she would have otherwise been in. \n Hagen objected to their inclusion, insisting that they fell \nwithin § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines, which excludes certain \nspecific offenses—and those “similar to” them—from a de‐\nfendant’s criminal history. According to Hagen, Guardian Al‐\nlows Child Truancy is similar enough to the listed excluded \noffense of “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy” that it \n\fNo. 18‐1579 3\n\nshould be excluded. The government responded that permit‐\nting truancy is a more serious offense than actually being tru‐\nant, since adult guardians are held to a higher standard of re‐\nsponsibility than are the children in their care. The district \ncourt sided with the government, and Hagen appeals that de‐\ncision. \n II. \n Under the Guidelines, prior offenses—including misde‐\nmeanors and petty offenses—typically increase the defend‐\nant’s criminal history score, which in turn affects the recom‐\nmended sentencing range. But § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines \nprovides two lists of offenses that courts are to treat differ‐\nently when calculating a criminal history score. Section \n4A1.2(c)(1) instructs that \n [s]entences for the following prior offenses and \n offenses similar to them, by whatever name \n they are known, are counted only if (A) the sen‐\n tence was a term of probation of more than one \n year or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty \n days, or (B) the prior offense was similar to an \n instant offense[.] \n It then lists various offenses, including careless driving, \ngambling, contempt of court, prostitution, and non‐support. \nSection 4A1.2(c)(2) says that certain offenses should never be \ncounted. Those include offenses such as fish and game viola‐\ntions, juvenile status offenses and truancy, loitering, and \nspeeding. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2). Like § 4A1.2(c)(1), this sec‐\ntion states that any offenses “similar to” the enumerated of‐\nfenses, “by whatever name they are known,” are not to be \ncounted. Id. \n\f4 No. 18‐1579 \n\n Hagen concedes that allowing truancy is not specifically \nlisted in either § 4A1.2(c)(1) or (c)(2). The question is whether \nher convictions should be excluded from her criminal history \nscore because they are “similar to” one or more of those listed \noffenses. The Guidelines commentary on § 4A1.2(c) lists five \nfactors for courts to consider in analyzing this issue: (1) “a \ncomparison of punishments imposed for the listed and un‐\nlisted offenses,” (2) “the perceived seriousness of the offense \nas indicated by the level of punishment,” (3) “the elements of \nthe offense,” (4) “the level of culpability involved,” and (5) \n“the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates \na likelihood of recurring criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 \ncmt. 12(A). In applying these factors, courts are to take a \n“common sense approach.” Id. \n The Illinois Code makes it a crime for “[a]ny person hav‐\ning custody or control of a child … to whom notice has been \ngiven of the child’s truancy … [to] knowingly and willfully \npermit[] such a child to persist in his truancy within that \nschool year.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10.1 A child is truant if \nthey are “absent without valid cause … from such attendance \nfor more than 1% but less than 5% of the past 180 school \ndays.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐2a. A guardian who allows \ntruancy commits a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to \n“30 days [of] imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $500.” 105 \nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Class C misdemeanors are the least \nserious misdemeanors in the Illinois code. See 730 Ill. Comp. \n\n\n\n\n \n 1 Though the name doesn’t seem to appear in the Illinois code, we take \n\nthe parties’ lead in calling this offense “Guardian Allows Child Truancy.” \n\fNo. 18‐1579 5\n\nStat. 5/5‐4.5‐10, 5/5‐4.5‐65. And the maximum fine for allow‐\ning truancy is lower than the usual $1,500 cap for a Class C \nmisdemeanor in Illinois. See id. at 5/5‐4.5‐65(e). \n Hagen’s argument below was that her offenses were sim‐\nilar to “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy,” an offense \nlisted in § 4A1.2(c)(2). She renews this argument on appeal. \nHer basic point is that Guardian Allows Child Truancy is \nnothing more than aiding and abetting truancy. If that’s right, \nshe says, then allowing truancy would be at most identical in \nseriousness to the underlying offense it abets, and it couldn’t \nlogically be worse. \n We disagree. Adults who allow (or abet) truancy are more \nculpable than the truant children themselves. They are held \nto a higher standard than those in their care, and for good rea‐\nson. Children can’t generally be expected to understand the \nimportance of their school attendance. But adults should \nknow better. \n The truancy laws in Illinois reflect this reasoning. The Illi‐\nnois Code doesn’t criminalize truancy by children—it doesn’t \neven allow for any punitive action to be taken unless support‐\nive services and resources have been provided to the student. \n105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐12. But it does criminalize the allow‐\nance of truancy by a guardian. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. In‐\ndeed, “criminal proceedings under the [truancy statutes] are \ndirected against those having custody of the child, not the \nchild himself.” In re K.S.Y., 416 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ill. Ct. App. \n1981). This is a significant difference in punishment, and it in‐\ndicates different levels of seriousness between the offenses. \nWe therefore conclude that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \nis not sufficiently similar to truancy itself to merit exclusion \nunder that part of § 4A1.2(c)(2). \n\f6 No. 18‐1579 \n\n III. \n That is not to say that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \nshould necessarily count toward Hagen’s criminal history cat‐\negory. Hagen contends that even if this offense is insuffi‐\nciently similar to truancy, it should be excluded because of its \nsimilarity to other offenses marked for exclusion by \n§§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2). \n Hagen did not raise this more general argument before the \ndistrict court; there, she focused solely on the comparison be‐\ntween allowing truancy and truancy itself. Because she for‐\nfeited the point she now presses, the government is correct \nthat we can review it only for plain error. See United States v. \nGarrett, 528 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2008). Under the plain error \ntest, we “decide whether there was an error, whether it was \nplain, and whether it affected substantial rights.” Id. If so, then \n“we may exercise our discretion only if the error seriously af‐\nfects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial \nproceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). \n None of the offenses listed in §§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) is \nexactly like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. But while allow‐\ning truancy is more serious than simple truancy, it is substan‐\ntially less serious than one comparable offense listed in \n§ 4A1.2(c)(1): non‐support, which involves various failures to \nsupport or provide maintenance for a spouse or child to \nwhom one is obligated. See, e.g., 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \n Non‐support is a (c)(1) offense. Those offenses (and those \nsimilar to them) are only counted if the sentence was a term \nof probation of more than one year or a term of imprisonment \nof at least thirty days, or if the prior offense was similar to an \n\fNo. 18‐1579 7\n\ninstant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Hagen’s Guardian Al‐\nlows Child Truancy sentences were for only four days total, \nand they were not similar to the drug conspiracy conviction \nfor which she is being sentenced here.2 Thus, if her prior of‐\nfenses were similar to non‐support, the district court should \nnot have included them. \n As noted, non‐support bears an obvious resemblance to \nallowing truancy because both offenses involve a guardian’s \nfailure to fulfill her responsibilities to a minor in her care. And \nthe following analysis of the five factors from the Guidelines \ncommentary does more than confirm this resemblance—it re‐\nveals that non‐support is a significantly more serious offense \nthan Guardian Allows Child Truancy. It would plainly violate \nour common sense approach to hold that the less serious of‐\nfense must be counted while the more serious one is exempt. \n The first factor compares the punishments for each of‐\nfense. Looking at Illinois’s code, we see that a person con‐\nvicted of non‐support is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor at \nbest, and a Class 4 felony at worst. 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. \n16/15(b). The former carries a sentence of less than one year of \nimprisonment, and the latter carries a sentence of not less than \none year and not more than three years. 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. \n5/5‐4.5‐45, 5/5‐4.5‐55. These sentences are both much more \nsignificant than the 30‐day maximum imprisonment for Class \n\n\n\n \n 2 Hagen’s first Guardian Allows Child Truancy offense earned her \n\ntwo days’ imprisonment, six months of delayed court supervision, and a \nfine of $210. Her second resulted in a sentence of two weekends’ impris‐\nonment, twelve months of court supervision, and a $180 fine. Her second \nfine and both terms of imprisonment were stayed. \n\f8 No. 18‐1579 \n\nC misdemeanors like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. 730 Ill. \nComp. Stat. 5/5‐4.5‐65. \n The relative sentences suggest a considerable difference in \nthe seriousness of these two offenses as indicated by their \npunishments, which we consider under the second commen‐\ntary factor. And the fact that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \nis the less serious of the two cuts very strongly in favor of ex‐\ncluding it under § 4A1.2(c)(1). \n Under the third factor, we compare the elements of the of‐\nfense. Here again, we see similarity between the two. Guard‐\nian Allows Child Truancy involves positions of authority over \na child and a willful failure to fulfill one’s responsibilities to \nthat child. See 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Non‐support in‐\nvolves a similar, and we think more serious, failure toward a \nchild or spouse. See 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \n This comparative culpability goes toward the fourth fac‐\ntor. Refusing to support a child strikes us as a more severe \noffense than allowing truancy. Non‐support involves one \nwho “without lawful excuse, deserts or willfully refuses to \nprovide for the support or maintenance of his or her \nchild … .” Id. We think that one who deserts a child or fails to \nprovide for the child’s basic necessities is more culpable than \none who permits a child to skip school. \n The fifth factor asks us to compare the extent to which \nthese offenses suggest a likelihood of recurring criminal con‐\nduct. It isn’t entirely clear which way this cuts, since both \ncrimes could be committed under many different circum‐\nstances. But at the very least, it doesn’t seem that permitting \ntruancy is any more likely to suggest future criminal conduct \nthan is non‐support. \n\fNo. 18‐1579 9\n\n In sum, the five‐factor test confirms that Guardian Allows \nChild Truancy is similar to the offense of non‐support and \nthat § 4A1.2(c)(1) therefore required its exclusion from Ha‐\ngen’s criminal history score. Non‐support bears so many ob‐\nvious similarities to Guardian Allows Child Truancy that the \ncourt plainly ought to have considered it. And it is so clearly \nmore serious than Hagen’s offenses that we are convinced \nthat the court committed plain error. This error affected a sub‐\nstantial right—Hagen’s freedom—by increasing her recom‐\nmended sentence under the Guidelines. See Garrett, 528 F.3d \nat 527 (“A sentence based on an incorrect Guideline range \nconstitutes an error affecting substantial rights and can thus \nconstitute plain error, which requires us to remand unless we \nhave reason to believe that the error did not affect the district \ncourt’s selection of a particular sentence.”). And the fact that \nthe more serious offense of non‐support is excluded would \nmake it particularly unjust to count the similar, less serious \noffense of Guardian Allows Child Truancy toward Hagen’s \ncriminal history score. We believe that letting this error stand \nwould “seriously affect[] the fairness … of judicial proceed‐\nings,” justifying a rare exercise of our discretion in reversing \nunder a plain error standard. See Garrett, 528 F.3d at 527. \n * * * \n We REVERSE the district court’s sentence and REMAND \nfor resentencing in accordance with this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Mandy L. Hagen\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 18‐1579 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMANDY L. HAGEN, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Southern District of Illinois. \\n No. 17‐CR‐40011 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. Mandy Hagen was convicted twice \\nunder Illinois law for failing to get her children to school. \\nWhen she later pleaded guilty in federal court for conspiring \\nto distribute methamphetamine, the district court counted her \\ntwo convictions for allowing child truancy toward her crimi‐\\nnal history score. That was an error. Section 4A1.2(c) of the \\nSentencing Guidelines excludes certain crimes, and those \\n“similar to” them, from a defendant’s criminal history. One of \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\nthe listed offenses is non‐support, which involves failing to \\nprovide for a child’s basic needs. Permitting truancy is a sim‐\\nilar offense, and a less serious one at that. Hagen’s criminal \\nhistory score must be recalculated, this time excluding her \\ntwo truancy‐related offenses. \\n I. \\n In 2013, Mandy Hagen joined a scheme to distribute meth‐\\namphetamine to several counties in Illinois. As part of this en‐\\nterprise, she sold meth, provided ingredients and a venue for \\nits manufacture, and collected drug debts. After a few close \\ncalls with law enforcement, Hagen was finally arraigned in \\nMay 2017. She pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy \\nto distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. \\n At sentencing, the government contended that the district \\ncourt should count Hagen’s two prior offenses for Guardian \\nAllows Child Truancy, a crime under 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐\\n10, in calculating her criminal history score. See U.S.S.G. \\n§ 4A1.1(c). Hagen had pleaded guilty to this offense twice. \\nDuring the 2013–14 school year, she allowed her child M.F. to \\nbe truant for 21 days. Then in 2015, she allowed another of her \\nchildren, B.F., to accumulate 18 unexcused absences. Includ‐\\ning these two convictions in the calculation of Hagen’s crimi‐\\nnal history score put her in a higher criminal history category \\nthan she would have otherwise been in. \\n Hagen objected to their inclusion, insisting that they fell \\nwithin § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines, which excludes certain \\nspecific offenses—and those “similar to” them—from a de‐\\nfendant’s criminal history. According to Hagen, Guardian Al‐\\nlows Child Truancy is similar enough to the listed excluded \\noffense of “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy” that it \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 3\\n\\nshould be excluded. The government responded that permit‐\\nting truancy is a more serious offense than actually being tru‐\\nant, since adult guardians are held to a higher standard of re‐\\nsponsibility than are the children in their care. The district \\ncourt sided with the government, and Hagen appeals that de‐\\ncision. \\n II. \\n Under the Guidelines, prior offenses—including misde‐\\nmeanors and petty offenses—typically increase the defend‐\\nant’s criminal history score, which in turn affects the recom‐\\nmended sentencing range. But § 4A1.2(c) of the Guidelines \\nprovides two lists of offenses that courts are to treat differ‐\\nently when calculating a criminal history score. Section \\n4A1.2(c)(1) instructs that \\n [s]entences for the following prior offenses and \\n offenses similar to them, by whatever name \\n they are known, are counted only if (A) the sen‐\\n tence was a term of probation of more than one \\n year or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty \\n days, or (B) the prior offense was similar to an \\n instant offense[.] \\n It then lists various offenses, including careless driving, \\ngambling, contempt of court, prostitution, and non‐support. \\nSection 4A1.2(c)(2) says that certain offenses should never be \\ncounted. Those include offenses such as fish and game viola‐\\ntions, juvenile status offenses and truancy, loitering, and \\nspeeding. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(2). Like § 4A1.2(c)(1), this sec‐\\ntion states that any offenses “similar to” the enumerated of‐\\nfenses, “by whatever name they are known,” are not to be \\ncounted. Id. \\n\\f4 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\n Hagen concedes that allowing truancy is not specifically \\nlisted in either § 4A1.2(c)(1) or (c)(2). The question is whether \\nher convictions should be excluded from her criminal history \\nscore because they are “similar to” one or more of those listed \\noffenses. The Guidelines commentary on § 4A1.2(c) lists five \\nfactors for courts to consider in analyzing this issue: (1) “a \\ncomparison of punishments imposed for the listed and un‐\\nlisted offenses,” (2) “the perceived seriousness of the offense \\nas indicated by the level of punishment,” (3) “the elements of \\nthe offense,” (4) “the level of culpability involved,” and (5) \\n“the degree to which the commission of the offense indicates \\na likelihood of recurring criminal conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2 \\ncmt. 12(A). In applying these factors, courts are to take a \\n“common sense approach.” Id. \\n The Illinois Code makes it a crime for “[a]ny person hav‐\\ning custody or control of a child … to whom notice has been \\ngiven of the child’s truancy … [to] knowingly and willfully \\npermit[] such a child to persist in his truancy within that \\nschool year.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10.1 A child is truant if \\nthey are “absent without valid cause … from such attendance \\nfor more than 1% but less than 5% of the past 180 school \\ndays.” 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐2a. A guardian who allows \\ntruancy commits a Class C misdemeanor punishable by up to \\n“30 days [of] imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $500.” 105 \\nIll. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Class C misdemeanors are the least \\nserious misdemeanors in the Illinois code. See 730 Ill. Comp. \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n \\n 1 Though the name doesn’t seem to appear in the Illinois code, we take \\n\\nthe parties’ lead in calling this offense “Guardian Allows Child Truancy.” \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 5\\n\\nStat. 5/5‐4.5‐10, 5/5‐4.5‐65. And the maximum fine for allow‐\\ning truancy is lower than the usual $1,500 cap for a Class C \\nmisdemeanor in Illinois. See id. at 5/5‐4.5‐65(e). \\n Hagen’s argument below was that her offenses were sim‐\\nilar to “[j]uvenile status offenses and truancy,” an offense \\nlisted in § 4A1.2(c)(2). She renews this argument on appeal. \\nHer basic point is that Guardian Allows Child Truancy is \\nnothing more than aiding and abetting truancy. If that’s right, \\nshe says, then allowing truancy would be at most identical in \\nseriousness to the underlying offense it abets, and it couldn’t \\nlogically be worse. \\n We disagree. Adults who allow (or abet) truancy are more \\nculpable than the truant children themselves. They are held \\nto a higher standard than those in their care, and for good rea‐\\nson. Children can’t generally be expected to understand the \\nimportance of their school attendance. But adults should \\nknow better. \\n The truancy laws in Illinois reflect this reasoning. The Illi‐\\nnois Code doesn’t criminalize truancy by children—it doesn’t \\neven allow for any punitive action to be taken unless support‐\\nive services and resources have been provided to the student. \\n105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐12. But it does criminalize the allow‐\\nance of truancy by a guardian. 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. In‐\\ndeed, “criminal proceedings under the [truancy statutes] are \\ndirected against those having custody of the child, not the \\nchild himself.” In re K.S.Y., 416 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ill. Ct. App. \\n1981). This is a significant difference in punishment, and it in‐\\ndicates different levels of seriousness between the offenses. \\nWe therefore conclude that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nis not sufficiently similar to truancy itself to merit exclusion \\nunder that part of § 4A1.2(c)(2). \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\n III. \\n That is not to say that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nshould necessarily count toward Hagen’s criminal history cat‐\\negory. Hagen contends that even if this offense is insuffi‐\\nciently similar to truancy, it should be excluded because of its \\nsimilarity to other offenses marked for exclusion by \\n§§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2). \\n Hagen did not raise this more general argument before the \\ndistrict court; there, she focused solely on the comparison be‐\\ntween allowing truancy and truancy itself. Because she for‐\\nfeited the point she now presses, the government is correct \\nthat we can review it only for plain error. See United States v. \\nGarrett, 528 F.3d 525, 527 (7th Cir. 2008). Under the plain error \\ntest, we “decide whether there was an error, whether it was \\nplain, and whether it affected substantial rights.” Id. If so, then \\n“we may exercise our discretion only if the error seriously af‐\\nfects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial \\nproceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). \\n None of the offenses listed in §§ 4A1.2(c)(1) and (c)(2) is \\nexactly like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. But while allow‐\\ning truancy is more serious than simple truancy, it is substan‐\\ntially less serious than one comparable offense listed in \\n§ 4A1.2(c)(1): non‐support, which involves various failures to \\nsupport or provide maintenance for a spouse or child to \\nwhom one is obligated. See, e.g., 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \\n Non‐support is a (c)(1) offense. Those offenses (and those \\nsimilar to them) are only counted if the sentence was a term \\nof probation of more than one year or a term of imprisonment \\nof at least thirty days, or if the prior offense was similar to an \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 7\\n\\ninstant offense. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). Hagen’s Guardian Al‐\\nlows Child Truancy sentences were for only four days total, \\nand they were not similar to the drug conspiracy conviction \\nfor which she is being sentenced here.2 Thus, if her prior of‐\\nfenses were similar to non‐support, the district court should \\nnot have included them. \\n As noted, non‐support bears an obvious resemblance to \\nallowing truancy because both offenses involve a guardian’s \\nfailure to fulfill her responsibilities to a minor in her care. And \\nthe following analysis of the five factors from the Guidelines \\ncommentary does more than confirm this resemblance—it re‐\\nveals that non‐support is a significantly more serious offense \\nthan Guardian Allows Child Truancy. It would plainly violate \\nour common sense approach to hold that the less serious of‐\\nfense must be counted while the more serious one is exempt. \\n The first factor compares the punishments for each of‐\\nfense. Looking at Illinois’s code, we see that a person con‐\\nvicted of non‐support is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor at \\nbest, and a Class 4 felony at worst. 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. \\n16/15(b). The former carries a sentence of less than one year of \\nimprisonment, and the latter carries a sentence of not less than \\none year and not more than three years. 730 Ill. Comp. Stat. \\n5/5‐4.5‐45, 5/5‐4.5‐55. These sentences are both much more \\nsignificant than the 30‐day maximum imprisonment for Class \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n 2 Hagen’s first Guardian Allows Child Truancy offense earned her \\n\\ntwo days’ imprisonment, six months of delayed court supervision, and a \\nfine of $210. Her second resulted in a sentence of two weekends’ impris‐\\nonment, twelve months of court supervision, and a $180 fine. Her second \\nfine and both terms of imprisonment were stayed. \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1579 \\n\\nC misdemeanors like Guardian Allows Child Truancy. 730 Ill. \\nComp. Stat. 5/5‐4.5‐65. \\n The relative sentences suggest a considerable difference in \\nthe seriousness of these two offenses as indicated by their \\npunishments, which we consider under the second commen‐\\ntary factor. And the fact that Guardian Allows Child Truancy \\nis the less serious of the two cuts very strongly in favor of ex‐\\ncluding it under § 4A1.2(c)(1). \\n Under the third factor, we compare the elements of the of‐\\nfense. Here again, we see similarity between the two. Guard‐\\nian Allows Child Truancy involves positions of authority over \\na child and a willful failure to fulfill one’s responsibilities to \\nthat child. See 105 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26‐10. Non‐support in‐\\nvolves a similar, and we think more serious, failure toward a \\nchild or spouse. See 750 Ill. Comp. Stat. 16/15(a). \\n This comparative culpability goes toward the fourth fac‐\\ntor. Refusing to support a child strikes us as a more severe \\noffense than allowing truancy. Non‐support involves one \\nwho “without lawful excuse, deserts or willfully refuses to \\nprovide for the support or maintenance of his or her \\nchild … .” Id. We think that one who deserts a child or fails to \\nprovide for the child’s basic necessities is more culpable than \\none who permits a child to skip school. \\n The fifth factor asks us to compare the extent to which \\nthese offenses suggest a likelihood of recurring criminal con‐\\nduct. It isn’t entirely clear which way this cuts, since both \\ncrimes could be committed under many different circum‐\\nstances. But at the very least, it doesn’t seem that permitting \\ntruancy is any more likely to suggest future criminal conduct \\nthan is non‐support. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1579 9\\n\\n In sum, the five‐factor test confirms that Guardian Allows \\nChild Truancy is similar to the offense of non‐support and \\nthat § 4A1.2(c)(1) therefore required its exclusion from Ha‐\\ngen’s criminal history score. Non‐support bears so many ob‐\\nvious similarities to Guardian Allows Child Truancy that the \\ncourt plainly ought to have considered it. And it is so clearly \\nmore serious than Hagen’s offenses that we are convinced \\nthat the court committed plain error. This error affected a sub‐\\nstantial right—Hagen’s freedom—by increasing her recom‐\\nmended sentence under the Guidelines. See Garrett, 528 F.3d \\nat 527 (“A sentence based on an incorrect Guideline range \\nconstitutes an error affecting substantial rights and can thus \\nconstitute plain error, which requires us to remand unless we \\nhave reason to believe that the error did not affect the district \\ncourt’s selection of a particular sentence.”). And the fact that \\nthe more serious offense of non‐support is excluded would \\nmake it particularly unjust to count the similar, less serious \\noffense of Guardian Allows Child Truancy toward Hagen’s \\ncriminal history score. We believe that letting this error stand \\nwould “seriously affect[] the fairness … of judicial proceed‐\\nings,” justifying a rare exercise of our discretion in reversing \\nunder a plain error standard. See Garrett, 528 F.3d at 527. \\n * * * \\n We REVERSE the district court’s sentence and REMAND \\nfor resentencing in accordance with this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":173,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578369,"string":"4,578,369"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Sharon MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ELGIN, Illinois, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Sharon Mitchell v. City of Elgin, Illinois"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"16-1907"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Kanne, Sykes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 16-1907\\nSHARON MITCHELL,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 14 C 3457 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JULY 6, 2017 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.*\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Sharon Mitchell enrolled in an online\\ncriminal-justice course offered by the Elgin Community\\nCollege. Her participation in the class did not go smoothly.\\nThe instructor—an officer of the Elgin Police Department—\\n\\n*CircuitJudge Richard A. Posner participated in the initial stages of this\\nappeal but retired from the court on September 2, 2017. This case was\\nresolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).\\n\\f2 No. 16-1907\\n\\neventually advised her that she was failing the course. Soon\\nafter, the Elgin Police Department received anonymous\\nthreats and a harassing email targeting the officer. A second\\nofficer swore out a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\\nelectronic communication harassment. She was arrested,\\nimmediately bonded out, and two years later was acquitted\\nafter a brief bench trial. Mitchell then sued the City of Elgin\\nand several of its officers seeking damages for wrongful\\nprosecution under various federal and state legal theories.\\n A district judge dismissed the case, concluding that the\\nfederal claims were either untimely or not cognizable and\\nrelinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law\\nclaims. Mitchell appealed. We heard argument in July 2017\\nbut held the case to await further developments in the wake\\nof the Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel v. City of Joliet\\n(“Manuel I”), 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017), which overturned the\\ncircuit caselaw that defeated Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\\nclaim below. Manuel I clarified that pretrial detention with-\\nout probable cause is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 920. But the Court\\ndid not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the Court\\nleft that issue open for this court to decide on remand. Id. at\\n922. In September a panel of this court answered that linger-\\ning question, holding that a Fourth Amendment claim for\\nunlawful pretrial detention accrues when the detention\\nends. Manuel v. City of Joliet (“Manuel II”), 903 F.3d 667, 670\\n(7th Cir. 2018).\\n We asked the parties to file position statements address-\\ning whether Mitchell’s claim is timely under Manuel II. They\\nhave done so. Based on the current state of the record and\\nbriefing, however, we find ourselves unable to decide the\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 3\\n\\ntimeliness question. The parties have not adequately ad-\\ndressed whether and under what circumstances a person\\nwho is arrested but released on bond remains “seized” for\\nFourth Amendment purposes. Moreover, we do not know\\nwhat conditions of release, if any, were imposed on Mitchell\\nwhen she bonded out after her arrest. The most we can say\\nat this juncture is that Mitchell might have a viable Fourth\\nAmendment claim under Manuel I and II. We therefore\\nreverse the judgment on that claim alone and remand to the\\ndistrict court for further proceedings consistent with this\\nopinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.\\n I. Background\\n We take the following factual account from Mitchell’s\\namended complaint. In the fall of 2010, Mitchell enrolled in\\nan online criminal-justice course at Elgin Community Col-\\nlege taught by Elgin Police Officer Ana Lalley. Officer Lalley\\nrequired her students to post responses to discussion topics\\nin an online forum. One topic related to students’ attitudes\\ntoward law enforcement. Mitchell’s posts on this topic were\\nso upsetting to Officer Lalley that she removed them, barred\\nMitchell from posting in the forum, and informed her that\\nshe may have violated school policies regarding student\\nbehavior. The friction between the two continued the follow-\\ning semester, and at some point Lalley informed Mitchell\\nthat she was failing the course.\\n In May 2011 the Police Department received two anony-\\nmous threats against Officer Lalley. First, Officer Todd\\nRamljak, another Elgin police officer who also taught at the\\ncollege, found a document containing threats against Lalley\\nin his school mailbox. Officer Ramljak filed a report about\\nthe incident. Two weeks later Officer Kevin Senne filed a\\n\\f4 No. 16-1907\\n\\nsupplement to Ramljak’s report stating that someone had\\nsent a harassing email to Lalley’s college email account.\\nLalley identified Mitchell as the only possible source of the\\nthreats and the harassing email. Sergeant Danner (first name\\nunknown) approved and signed these reports. In August\\n2011 Senne filed a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\\nelectronic communication harassment. A warrant for her\\narrest followed, and on August 17, 2011, Mitchell was arrest-\\ned and transferred to the custody of the Kane County\\nSheriff’s Department. She posted a $250 bond and was\\nreleased that same day. The amended complaint is silent\\nabout the conditions of her release.\\n The case dragged on for two years. Mitchell was offered\\nseveral plea deals but declined them all. On August 22, 2013,\\nshe was acquitted after a one-day bench trial.\\n On May 23, 2014, Mitchell filed suit pro se against the\\nCity of Elgin and several police officers seeking damages\\nunder § 1983 for violation of her rights under the First\\nAmendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protec-\\ntion and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend-\\nment. She also asserted various claims under state law. The\\ndistrict judge dismissed the federal claims and most of the\\nstate claims but allowed Mitchell to go forward on a state-\\nlaw malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Senne and\\nSergeant Danner and an indemnification claim against the\\nCity. The judge recruited pro bono counsel to assist Mitchell\\non these remaining claims.\\n The defendants moved to alter the judgment, urging the\\njudge to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-\\nlaw claims since no federal claim remained. Through newly\\nrecruited counsel, Mitchell moved for an extension of time to\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 5\\n\\nrespond to the motion and to seek leave to file a second\\namended complaint. The judge ordered counsel to identify\\nthe claims he proposed to add in an amended complaint.\\n Mitchell’s counsel responded as directed. As relevant\\nhere, counsel explained that he sought leave to replead the\\n§ 1983 claim for “malicious prosecution,” framing it as a\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process\\nClause. The judge declined to allow the proposed amend-\\nment, relying on longstanding circuit precedent holding that\\nthe Fourth Amendment has no role to play after the initia-\\ntion of formal legal process (e.g., an arrest warrant or a\\nprobable-cause hearing) and that the existence of adequate\\nremedies under Illinois law foreclosed a federal “malicious\\nprosecution” claim under the Due Process Clause. Newsome\\nv. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 2001). The judge then\\nreconsidered his earlier decision to retain supplemental\\njurisdiction over the state-law claims that had survived\\ndismissal on the pleadings. He reversed course, relinquished\\nsupplemental jurisdiction, and entered final judgment for\\nthe defendants. Mitchell appealed.\\n II. Analysis\\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel I arrived just as\\nthe briefing of this appeal was wrapping up, substantially\\naltering the legal framework of Mitchell’s case. Manuel I\\nabrogated our circuit precedent foreclosing Fourth Amend-\\nment claims for unlawful pretrial detention after the initia-\\ntion of formal legal process. The Court held that “pretrial\\ndetention can violate the Fourth Amendment not only when\\nit precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal pro-\\ncess in a criminal case.” Manuel I, 137 S. Ct. at 918.\\n\\f6 No. 16-1907\\n\\n Discarding the “malicious prosecution” analogy, the\\nCourt grounded its analysis in the basic Fourth Amendment\\nprinciple that law enforcement must have probable cause to\\ndetain a person on suspicion of a crime:\\n The Fourth Amendment prohibits government\\n officials from detaining a person in the absence\\n of probable cause. That can happen when the\\n police hold someone without any reason before\\n the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But\\n it can also occur when legal process itself goes\\n wrong—when, for example, a judge’s proba-\\n ble-cause determination is predicated solely on\\n a police officer’s false statements. Then, too, a\\n person is confined without constitutionally ad-\\n equate justification. Legal process has gone\\n forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the\\n Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause require-\\n ment. And for that reason, it cannot extinguish\\n the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim—or\\n somehow … convert that claim into one\\n founded on the Due Process Clause.\\nId. at 918–19 (citations omitted). So it’s now clear that “the\\nFourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial\\ndetention even beyond the start of legal process.” Id. at 920.\\n Manuel I recasts the legal framework for part of Mitchell’s\\ncase. To the extent that her claim is one for unlawful deten-\\ntion without probable cause, it may survive beyond the\\npleading stage—provided, however, that she sued on time.\\nManuel I did not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the\\nCourt returned Elijah Manuel’s case to this court to decide\\nthat question. Id. at 921–22. On remand the Manuel panel\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 7\\n\\nreheard the case and recently held that a claim for unlawful\\npretrial detention accrues when the detention ceases.\\nManuel II, 903 F.3d at 670.\\n In light of these developments, we asked the parties to\\naddress the timeliness of Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\\nclaim under Manuel II. A two-year limitations period, bor-\\nrowed from state law, governs § 1983 claims in Illinois,\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388–89 (2007), but the parties\\ndisagree about when that two-year clock started to run.\\n Mitchell contends that her Fourth Amendment claim ac-\\ncrued on August 22, 2013, when the state judge entered a\\nverdict of acquittal in her criminal case. She filed suit on\\nMay 23, 2014, less than two years later, so if she is correct on\\nthe accrual question, her claim is timely.\\n At first blush Mitchell’s position is hard to square with\\nManuel II, which as we’ve noted held that a Fourth Amend-\\nment claim for unlawful pretrial detention accrues when the\\ndetention ends, not when the prosecution ends. Mitchell was\\nnot detained beyond her initial arrest; she bonded out the\\nsame day and suffered no further pretrial detention. To\\novercome this impediment, Mitchell argues that despite her\\npretrial release, she remained “in custody” until she was\\nexonerated at trial. For support she draws on the law of\\nhabeas corpus, which considers a person who is released on\\nbail to be “in custody” for purposes of testing the legality of\\nthe custody via the writ. See Burris v. Ryan, 397 F.2d 553, 555\\n(7th Cir. 1968) (“[O]ne under arrest, but at large on bail, is\\nentitled to a writ the same as if the arrest was accompanied\\nby actual imprisonment.”) (quoting Mackenzie v. Barrett, 141\\nF. 964, 966 (7th Cir. 1905))).\\n\\f8 No. 16-1907\\n\\n We’re skeptical about the habeas analogy. The long and\\ncomplex history of habeas corpus in England reveals that the\\nwrit could issue even when the petitioner found himself in\\n“something less than close physical confinement.” Jones v.\\nCunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 238 (1963). We hesitate to apply\\nthe lessons of that historical record beyond its own context.\\nMoreover, there are important differences between modern\\nhabeas corpus and the protections of the Fourth Amend-\\nment. Habeas corpus has expanded into a statutory frame-\\nwork for federal-court review of state convictions tainted by\\negregious federal constitutional error. The Fourth Amend-\\nment, by contrast, guards against unreasonable seizures.\\nAnd seizures, whether discrete or continuous, are events—\\nnot outcomes. Because these bodies of law address different\\nwrongs, we’re not ready to assume that “custody” in the\\nformer context necessarily constitutes “seizure” in the latter.\\n The defendants posit that under Manuel II Mitchell’s sei-\\nzure ended when she was released on bond immediately\\nafter her arrest on August 17, 2011. This suit came more than\\ntwo years later, so if they’re right, Mitchell’s Fourth\\nAmendment claim is untimely.\\n This argument overlooks the possibility that pretrial re-\\nlease might be construed as a “seizure” for Fourth Amend-\\nment purposes if the conditions of that release impose\\nsignificant restrictions on liberty. Several of our sister cir-\\ncuits have adopted this approach. See, e.g., Evans v. Ball,\\n168 F.3d 856, 861 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that a seizure\\noccurred where the plaintiff had to “obtain permission\\nbefore leaving the state, report regularly to pretrial services,\\nsign a personal recognizance bond, and provide federal\\nofficers with financial and identifying information”), abrogat-\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 9\\n\\ned on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th\\nCir. 2003). Two circuits have even gone so far as to character-\\nize the obligation to appear in court, standing alone, as an\\nongoing seizure. Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358,\\n366–67 (3d Cir. 2016); Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105, 112 (2d\\nCir. 2013). This appears to be a minority position, however.\\nSee Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2001)\\n(“[R]un-of-the-mill conditions of pretrial release do not fit\\ncomfortably within the recognized parameters of the term\\n[seizure].”); see also Harrington v. City of Nashua, 610 F.3d 24,\\n32 (1st Cir. 2010); Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220,\\n1236 (11th Cir. 2004); Cummin v. North, 731 F. App’x 465, 473\\n(6th Cir. 2018). In any event, there is out-of-circuit support\\nfor the proposition that the concept of “seizure” under the\\nFourth Amendment extends beyond physical detention.\\n We haven’t given a Fourth Amendment “seizure” quite\\nsuch a broad construction. See Bielanski v. County of Kane,\\n550 F.3d 632, 642 (7th Cir. 2008) (characterizing a summons,\\ntravel restriction, and interview requirement as “insufficient\\nrestraints on freedom of movement to constitute a seizure”).\\nAnd until the Supreme Court spoke in Manuel I, two aspects\\nof our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence made the prospect\\nof a “nondetention seizure” quite unlikely in this circuit.\\nFirst, we rejected the concept of a continuous seizure. See\\nWelton v. Anderson, 770 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2014) (collect-\\ning cases). Second, we characterized Fourth Amendment\\nclaims as only viable “up to the point of arraignment.” Id.\\nThe latter proposition was plainly abrogated in Manuel I. But\\nthe effect of Manuel I on the Fourth Amendment status of\\npretrial release conditions is less certain. The panel in Manuel\\nII had no occasion to address the question because Elijah\\n\\f10 No. 16-1907\\n\\nManuel was held in jail until the charges against him were\\ndropped.\\n We have misgivings about construing a simple obligation\\nto appear in court—a uniform condition of any pretrial\\nrelease—as a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes.\\nConverting every traffic ticket into a nascent Fourth\\nAmendment claim strikes us as an aggressive reading of the\\nconstitutional text. And the canonical test for seizures re-\\nmains whether a state official has “terminate[d] or re-\\nstrain[ed]” an individual’s “freedom of movement” such\\nthat “a reasonable person would have believed that he was\\nnot free to leave.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254–55\\n(2007) (citations omitted). Whether pretrial-release condi-\\ntions satisfy that standard—and if so, which ones—will have\\nto be resolved in this circuit in the wake of Manuel I and II.\\n On this record, however, we are unable to decide the\\nmatter. The parties haven’t briefed the legal question of the\\nscope of a Fourth Amendment “seizure” in this context. And\\neven if we decided to reach the merits, we lack sufficient\\ninformation about Mitchell’s conditions of release to deter-\\nmine if she remained “seized” while on pretrial release. In\\nher supplemental filing, Mitchell simply pointed to the bond\\nconditions imposed by Illinois law. See 725 ILL. COMP.\\nSTAT. 5/110-10(a)(1)–(3) (2006) (requiring a person released\\non bond to attend a court hearing and seek permission\\nbefore leaving the state). She also noted that a judge may\\nimpose additional release conditions. But we don’t know\\nwhether the judge did so in her case.\\n For now, all we can say is that in light of Manuel I,\\nMitchell’s Fourth Amendment claim was wrongly dismissed\\nbased on our now-abrogated circuit caselaw. But the timeli-\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 11\\n\\nness of the claim remains an open question, and gaps in the\\nbriefing and record preclude our ability to answer it. We\\ntherefore reverse and remand for further proceedings con-\\nsistent with this opinion.\\n Mitchell’s remaining arguments require little comment.\\nShe raises procedural objections to the judge’s handling of\\nher motion for an extension of time to seek leave to file a\\nsecond amended complaint. With the exception of the\\nFourth Amendment claim, we find no abuse of discretion.1\\n For the foregoing reasons and only on the Fourth\\nAmendment claim, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND\\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all\\nother respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n1 Mitchell’s counsel identified two other claims as potential candidates\\nfor inclusion in an amended complaint: (1) a claim for conspiracy to\\nviolate Mitchell’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1985(3); and (2) an additional § 1983 claim for “abuse of process” in\\nviolation of the First Amendment. Mitchell has not seriously pressed\\nthese claims on appeal.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355622/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578369/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Sharon MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ELGIN, Illinois, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 16-1907\nSHARON MITCHELL,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nCITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 14 C 3457 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JULY 6, 2017 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.*\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Sharon Mitchell enrolled in an online\ncriminal-justice course offered by the Elgin Community\nCollege. Her participation in the class did not go smoothly.\nThe instructor—an officer of the Elgin Police Department—\n\n*CircuitJudge Richard A. Posner participated in the initial stages of this\nappeal but retired from the court on September 2, 2017. This case was\nresolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).\n\f2 No. 16-1907\n\neventually advised her that she was failing the course. Soon\nafter, the Elgin Police Department received anonymous\nthreats and a harassing email targeting the officer. A second\nofficer swore out a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\nelectronic communication harassment. She was arrested,\nimmediately bonded out, and two years later was acquitted\nafter a brief bench trial. Mitchell then sued the City of Elgin\nand several of its officers seeking damages for wrongful\nprosecution under various federal and state legal theories.\n A district judge dismissed the case, concluding that the\nfederal claims were either untimely or not cognizable and\nrelinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law\nclaims. Mitchell appealed. We heard argument in July 2017\nbut held the case to await further developments in the wake\nof the Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel v. City of Joliet\n(“Manuel I”), 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017), which overturned the\ncircuit caselaw that defeated Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\nclaim below. Manuel I clarified that pretrial detention with-\nout probable cause is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 920. But the Court\ndid not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the Court\nleft that issue open for this court to decide on remand. Id. at\n922. In September a panel of this court answered that linger-\ning question, holding that a Fourth Amendment claim for\nunlawful pretrial detention accrues when the detention\nends. Manuel v. City of Joliet (“Manuel II”), 903 F.3d 667, 670\n(7th Cir. 2018).\n We asked the parties to file position statements address-\ning whether Mitchell’s claim is timely under Manuel II. They\nhave done so. Based on the current state of the record and\nbriefing, however, we find ourselves unable to decide the\n\fNo. 16-1907 3\n\ntimeliness question. The parties have not adequately ad-\ndressed whether and under what circumstances a person\nwho is arrested but released on bond remains “seized” for\nFourth Amendment purposes. Moreover, we do not know\nwhat conditions of release, if any, were imposed on Mitchell\nwhen she bonded out after her arrest. The most we can say\nat this juncture is that Mitchell might have a viable Fourth\nAmendment claim under Manuel I and II. We therefore\nreverse the judgment on that claim alone and remand to the\ndistrict court for further proceedings consistent with this\nopinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.\n I. Background\n We take the following factual account from Mitchell’s\namended complaint. In the fall of 2010, Mitchell enrolled in\nan online criminal-justice course at Elgin Community Col-\nlege taught by Elgin Police Officer Ana Lalley. Officer Lalley\nrequired her students to post responses to discussion topics\nin an online forum. One topic related to students’ attitudes\ntoward law enforcement. Mitchell’s posts on this topic were\nso upsetting to Officer Lalley that she removed them, barred\nMitchell from posting in the forum, and informed her that\nshe may have violated school policies regarding student\nbehavior. The friction between the two continued the follow-\ning semester, and at some point Lalley informed Mitchell\nthat she was failing the course.\n In May 2011 the Police Department received two anony-\nmous threats against Officer Lalley. First, Officer Todd\nRamljak, another Elgin police officer who also taught at the\ncollege, found a document containing threats against Lalley\nin his school mailbox. Officer Ramljak filed a report about\nthe incident. Two weeks later Officer Kevin Senne filed a\n\f4 No. 16-1907\n\nsupplement to Ramljak’s report stating that someone had\nsent a harassing email to Lalley’s college email account.\nLalley identified Mitchell as the only possible source of the\nthreats and the harassing email. Sergeant Danner (first name\nunknown) approved and signed these reports. In August\n2011 Senne filed a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\nelectronic communication harassment. A warrant for her\narrest followed, and on August 17, 2011, Mitchell was arrest-\ned and transferred to the custody of the Kane County\nSheriff’s Department. She posted a $250 bond and was\nreleased that same day. The amended complaint is silent\nabout the conditions of her release.\n The case dragged on for two years. Mitchell was offered\nseveral plea deals but declined them all. On August 22, 2013,\nshe was acquitted after a one-day bench trial.\n On May 23, 2014, Mitchell filed suit pro se against the\nCity of Elgin and several police officers seeking damages\nunder § 1983 for violation of her rights under the First\nAmendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protec-\ntion and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend-\nment. She also asserted various claims under state law. The\ndistrict judge dismissed the federal claims and most of the\nstate claims but allowed Mitchell to go forward on a state-\nlaw malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Senne and\nSergeant Danner and an indemnification claim against the\nCity. The judge recruited pro bono counsel to assist Mitchell\non these remaining claims.\n The defendants moved to alter the judgment, urging the\njudge to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-\nlaw claims since no federal claim remained. Through newly\nrecruited counsel, Mitchell moved for an extension of time to\n\fNo. 16-1907 5\n\nrespond to the motion and to seek leave to file a second\namended complaint. The judge ordered counsel to identify\nthe claims he proposed to add in an amended complaint.\n Mitchell’s counsel responded as directed. As relevant\nhere, counsel explained that he sought leave to replead the\n§ 1983 claim for “malicious prosecution,” framing it as a\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process\nClause. The judge declined to allow the proposed amend-\nment, relying on longstanding circuit precedent holding that\nthe Fourth Amendment has no role to play after the initia-\ntion of formal legal process (e.g., an arrest warrant or a\nprobable-cause hearing) and that the existence of adequate\nremedies under Illinois law foreclosed a federal “malicious\nprosecution” claim under the Due Process Clause. Newsome\nv. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 2001). The judge then\nreconsidered his earlier decision to retain supplemental\njurisdiction over the state-law claims that had survived\ndismissal on the pleadings. He reversed course, relinquished\nsupplemental jurisdiction, and entered final judgment for\nthe defendants. Mitchell appealed.\n II. Analysis\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel I arrived just as\nthe briefing of this appeal was wrapping up, substantially\naltering the legal framework of Mitchell’s case. Manuel I\nabrogated our circuit precedent foreclosing Fourth Amend-\nment claims for unlawful pretrial detention after the initia-\ntion of formal legal process. The Court held that “pretrial\ndetention can violate the Fourth Amendment not only when\nit precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal pro-\ncess in a criminal case.” Manuel I, 137 S. Ct. at 918.\n\f6 No. 16-1907\n\n Discarding the “malicious prosecution” analogy, the\nCourt grounded its analysis in the basic Fourth Amendment\nprinciple that law enforcement must have probable cause to\ndetain a person on suspicion of a crime:\n The Fourth Amendment prohibits government\n officials from detaining a person in the absence\n of probable cause. That can happen when the\n police hold someone without any reason before\n the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But\n it can also occur when legal process itself goes\n wrong—when, for example, a judge’s proba-\n ble-cause determination is predicated solely on\n a police officer’s false statements. Then, too, a\n person is confined without constitutionally ad-\n equate justification. Legal process has gone\n forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the\n Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause require-\n ment. And for that reason, it cannot extinguish\n the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim—or\n somehow … convert that claim into one\n founded on the Due Process Clause.\nId. at 918–19 (citations omitted). So it’s now clear that “the\nFourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial\ndetention even beyond the start of legal process.” Id. at 920.\n Manuel I recasts the legal framework for part of Mitchell’s\ncase. To the extent that her claim is one for unlawful deten-\ntion without probable cause, it may survive beyond the\npleading stage—provided, however, that she sued on time.\nManuel I did not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the\nCourt returned Elijah Manuel’s case to this court to decide\nthat question. Id. at 921–22. On remand the Manuel panel\n\fNo. 16-1907 7\n\nreheard the case and recently held that a claim for unlawful\npretrial detention accrues when the detention ceases.\nManuel II, 903 F.3d at 670.\n In light of these developments, we asked the parties to\naddress the timeliness of Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\nclaim under Manuel II. A two-year limitations period, bor-\nrowed from state law, governs § 1983 claims in Illinois,\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388–89 (2007), but the parties\ndisagree about when that two-year clock started to run.\n Mitchell contends that her Fourth Amendment claim ac-\ncrued on August 22, 2013, when the state judge entered a\nverdict of acquittal in her criminal case. She filed suit on\nMay 23, 2014, less than two years later, so if she is correct on\nthe accrual question, her claim is timely.\n At first blush Mitchell’s position is hard to square with\nManuel II, which as we’ve noted held that a Fourth Amend-\nment claim for unlawful pretrial detention accrues when the\ndetention ends, not when the prosecution ends. Mitchell was\nnot detained beyond her initial arrest; she bonded out the\nsame day and suffered no further pretrial detention. To\novercome this impediment, Mitchell argues that despite her\npretrial release, she remained “in custody” until she was\nexonerated at trial. For support she draws on the law of\nhabeas corpus, which considers a person who is released on\nbail to be “in custody” for purposes of testing the legality of\nthe custody via the writ. See Burris v. Ryan, 397 F.2d 553, 555\n(7th Cir. 1968) (“[O]ne under arrest, but at large on bail, is\nentitled to a writ the same as if the arrest was accompanied\nby actual imprisonment.”) (quoting Mackenzie v. Barrett, 141\nF. 964, 966 (7th Cir. 1905))).\n\f8 No. 16-1907\n\n We’re skeptical about the habeas analogy. The long and\ncomplex history of habeas corpus in England reveals that the\nwrit could issue even when the petitioner found himself in\n“something less than close physical confinement.” Jones v.\nCunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 238 (1963). We hesitate to apply\nthe lessons of that historical record beyond its own context.\nMoreover, there are important differences between modern\nhabeas corpus and the protections of the Fourth Amend-\nment. Habeas corpus has expanded into a statutory frame-\nwork for federal-court review of state convictions tainted by\negregious federal constitutional error. The Fourth Amend-\nment, by contrast, guards against unreasonable seizures.\nAnd seizures, whether discrete or continuous, are events—\nnot outcomes. Because these bodies of law address different\nwrongs, we’re not ready to assume that “custody” in the\nformer context necessarily constitutes “seizure” in the latter.\n The defendants posit that under Manuel II Mitchell’s sei-\nzure ended when she was released on bond immediately\nafter her arrest on August 17, 2011. This suit came more than\ntwo years later, so if they’re right, Mitchell’s Fourth\nAmendment claim is untimely.\n This argument overlooks the possibility that pretrial re-\nlease might be construed as a “seizure” for Fourth Amend-\nment purposes if the conditions of that release impose\nsignificant restrictions on liberty. Several of our sister cir-\ncuits have adopted this approach. See, e.g., Evans v. Ball,\n168 F.3d 856, 861 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that a seizure\noccurred where the plaintiff had to “obtain permission\nbefore leaving the state, report regularly to pretrial services,\nsign a personal recognizance bond, and provide federal\nofficers with financial and identifying information”), abrogat-\n\fNo. 16-1907 9\n\ned on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th\nCir. 2003). Two circuits have even gone so far as to character-\nize the obligation to appear in court, standing alone, as an\nongoing seizure. Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358,\n366–67 (3d Cir. 2016); Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105, 112 (2d\nCir. 2013). This appears to be a minority position, however.\nSee Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2001)\n(“[R]un-of-the-mill conditions of pretrial release do not fit\ncomfortably within the recognized parameters of the term\n[seizure].”); see also Harrington v. City of Nashua, 610 F.3d 24,\n32 (1st Cir. 2010); Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220,\n1236 (11th Cir. 2004); Cummin v. North, 731 F. App’x 465, 473\n(6th Cir. 2018). In any event, there is out-of-circuit support\nfor the proposition that the concept of “seizure” under the\nFourth Amendment extends beyond physical detention.\n We haven’t given a Fourth Amendment “seizure” quite\nsuch a broad construction. See Bielanski v. County of Kane,\n550 F.3d 632, 642 (7th Cir. 2008) (characterizing a summons,\ntravel restriction, and interview requirement as “insufficient\nrestraints on freedom of movement to constitute a seizure”).\nAnd until the Supreme Court spoke in Manuel I, two aspects\nof our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence made the prospect\nof a “nondetention seizure” quite unlikely in this circuit.\nFirst, we rejected the concept of a continuous seizure. See\nWelton v. Anderson, 770 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2014) (collect-\ning cases). Second, we characterized Fourth Amendment\nclaims as only viable “up to the point of arraignment.” Id.\nThe latter proposition was plainly abrogated in Manuel I. But\nthe effect of Manuel I on the Fourth Amendment status of\npretrial release conditions is less certain. The panel in Manuel\nII had no occasion to address the question because Elijah\n\f10 No. 16-1907\n\nManuel was held in jail until the charges against him were\ndropped.\n We have misgivings about construing a simple obligation\nto appear in court—a uniform condition of any pretrial\nrelease—as a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes.\nConverting every traffic ticket into a nascent Fourth\nAmendment claim strikes us as an aggressive reading of the\nconstitutional text. And the canonical test for seizures re-\nmains whether a state official has “terminate[d] or re-\nstrain[ed]” an individual’s “freedom of movement” such\nthat “a reasonable person would have believed that he was\nnot free to leave.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254–55\n(2007) (citations omitted). Whether pretrial-release condi-\ntions satisfy that standard—and if so, which ones—will have\nto be resolved in this circuit in the wake of Manuel I and II.\n On this record, however, we are unable to decide the\nmatter. The parties haven’t briefed the legal question of the\nscope of a Fourth Amendment “seizure” in this context. And\neven if we decided to reach the merits, we lack sufficient\ninformation about Mitchell’s conditions of release to deter-\nmine if she remained “seized” while on pretrial release. In\nher supplemental filing, Mitchell simply pointed to the bond\nconditions imposed by Illinois law. See 725 ILL. COMP.\nSTAT. 5/110-10(a)(1)–(3) (2006) (requiring a person released\non bond to attend a court hearing and seek permission\nbefore leaving the state). She also noted that a judge may\nimpose additional release conditions. But we don’t know\nwhether the judge did so in her case.\n For now, all we can say is that in light of Manuel I,\nMitchell’s Fourth Amendment claim was wrongly dismissed\nbased on our now-abrogated circuit caselaw. But the timeli-\n\fNo. 16-1907 11\n\nness of the claim remains an open question, and gaps in the\nbriefing and record preclude our ability to answer it. We\ntherefore reverse and remand for further proceedings con-\nsistent with this opinion.\n Mitchell’s remaining arguments require little comment.\nShe raises procedural objections to the judge’s handling of\nher motion for an extension of time to seek leave to file a\nsecond amended complaint. With the exception of the\nFourth Amendment claim, we find no abuse of discretion.1\n For the foregoing reasons and only on the Fourth\nAmendment claim, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all\nother respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.\n\n\n\n\n1 Mitchell’s counsel identified two other claims as potential candidates\nfor inclusion in an amended complaint: (1) a claim for conspiracy to\nviolate Mitchell’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C.\n§ 1985(3); and (2) an additional § 1983 claim for “abuse of process” in\nviolation of the First Amendment. Mitchell has not seriously pressed\nthese claims on appeal.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Sharon MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ELGIN, Illinois, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 16-1907\\nSHARON MITCHELL,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 14 C 3457 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JULY 6, 2017 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.*\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Sharon Mitchell enrolled in an online\\ncriminal-justice course offered by the Elgin Community\\nCollege. Her participation in the class did not go smoothly.\\nThe instructor—an officer of the Elgin Police Department—\\n\\n*CircuitJudge Richard A. Posner participated in the initial stages of this\\nappeal but retired from the court on September 2, 2017. This case was\\nresolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).\\n\\f2 No. 16-1907\\n\\neventually advised her that she was failing the course. Soon\\nafter, the Elgin Police Department received anonymous\\nthreats and a harassing email targeting the officer. A second\\nofficer swore out a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\\nelectronic communication harassment. She was arrested,\\nimmediately bonded out, and two years later was acquitted\\nafter a brief bench trial. Mitchell then sued the City of Elgin\\nand several of its officers seeking damages for wrongful\\nprosecution under various federal and state legal theories.\\n A district judge dismissed the case, concluding that the\\nfederal claims were either untimely or not cognizable and\\nrelinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law\\nclaims. Mitchell appealed. We heard argument in July 2017\\nbut held the case to await further developments in the wake\\nof the Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel v. City of Joliet\\n(“Manuel I”), 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017), which overturned the\\ncircuit caselaw that defeated Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\\nclaim below. Manuel I clarified that pretrial detention with-\\nout probable cause is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 920. But the Court\\ndid not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the Court\\nleft that issue open for this court to decide on remand. Id. at\\n922. In September a panel of this court answered that linger-\\ning question, holding that a Fourth Amendment claim for\\nunlawful pretrial detention accrues when the detention\\nends. Manuel v. City of Joliet (“Manuel II”), 903 F.3d 667, 670\\n(7th Cir. 2018).\\n We asked the parties to file position statements address-\\ning whether Mitchell’s claim is timely under Manuel II. They\\nhave done so. Based on the current state of the record and\\nbriefing, however, we find ourselves unable to decide the\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 3\\n\\ntimeliness question. The parties have not adequately ad-\\ndressed whether and under what circumstances a person\\nwho is arrested but released on bond remains “seized” for\\nFourth Amendment purposes. Moreover, we do not know\\nwhat conditions of release, if any, were imposed on Mitchell\\nwhen she bonded out after her arrest. The most we can say\\nat this juncture is that Mitchell might have a viable Fourth\\nAmendment claim under Manuel I and II. We therefore\\nreverse the judgment on that claim alone and remand to the\\ndistrict court for further proceedings consistent with this\\nopinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.\\n I. Background\\n We take the following factual account from Mitchell’s\\namended complaint. In the fall of 2010, Mitchell enrolled in\\nan online criminal-justice course at Elgin Community Col-\\nlege taught by Elgin Police Officer Ana Lalley. Officer Lalley\\nrequired her students to post responses to discussion topics\\nin an online forum. One topic related to students’ attitudes\\ntoward law enforcement. Mitchell’s posts on this topic were\\nso upsetting to Officer Lalley that she removed them, barred\\nMitchell from posting in the forum, and informed her that\\nshe may have violated school policies regarding student\\nbehavior. The friction between the two continued the follow-\\ning semester, and at some point Lalley informed Mitchell\\nthat she was failing the course.\\n In May 2011 the Police Department received two anony-\\nmous threats against Officer Lalley. First, Officer Todd\\nRamljak, another Elgin police officer who also taught at the\\ncollege, found a document containing threats against Lalley\\nin his school mailbox. Officer Ramljak filed a report about\\nthe incident. Two weeks later Officer Kevin Senne filed a\\n\\f4 No. 16-1907\\n\\nsupplement to Ramljak’s report stating that someone had\\nsent a harassing email to Lalley’s college email account.\\nLalley identified Mitchell as the only possible source of the\\nthreats and the harassing email. Sergeant Danner (first name\\nunknown) approved and signed these reports. In August\\n2011 Senne filed a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\\nelectronic communication harassment. A warrant for her\\narrest followed, and on August 17, 2011, Mitchell was arrest-\\ned and transferred to the custody of the Kane County\\nSheriff’s Department. She posted a $250 bond and was\\nreleased that same day. The amended complaint is silent\\nabout the conditions of her release.\\n The case dragged on for two years. Mitchell was offered\\nseveral plea deals but declined them all. On August 22, 2013,\\nshe was acquitted after a one-day bench trial.\\n On May 23, 2014, Mitchell filed suit pro se against the\\nCity of Elgin and several police officers seeking damages\\nunder § 1983 for violation of her rights under the First\\nAmendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protec-\\ntion and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend-\\nment. She also asserted various claims under state law. The\\ndistrict judge dismissed the federal claims and most of the\\nstate claims but allowed Mitchell to go forward on a state-\\nlaw malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Senne and\\nSergeant Danner and an indemnification claim against the\\nCity. The judge recruited pro bono counsel to assist Mitchell\\non these remaining claims.\\n The defendants moved to alter the judgment, urging the\\njudge to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-\\nlaw claims since no federal claim remained. Through newly\\nrecruited counsel, Mitchell moved for an extension of time to\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 5\\n\\nrespond to the motion and to seek leave to file a second\\namended complaint. The judge ordered counsel to identify\\nthe claims he proposed to add in an amended complaint.\\n Mitchell’s counsel responded as directed. As relevant\\nhere, counsel explained that he sought leave to replead the\\n§ 1983 claim for “malicious prosecution,” framing it as a\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process\\nClause. The judge declined to allow the proposed amend-\\nment, relying on longstanding circuit precedent holding that\\nthe Fourth Amendment has no role to play after the initia-\\ntion of formal legal process (e.g., an arrest warrant or a\\nprobable-cause hearing) and that the existence of adequate\\nremedies under Illinois law foreclosed a federal “malicious\\nprosecution” claim under the Due Process Clause. Newsome\\nv. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 2001). The judge then\\nreconsidered his earlier decision to retain supplemental\\njurisdiction over the state-law claims that had survived\\ndismissal on the pleadings. He reversed course, relinquished\\nsupplemental jurisdiction, and entered final judgment for\\nthe defendants. Mitchell appealed.\\n II. Analysis\\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel I arrived just as\\nthe briefing of this appeal was wrapping up, substantially\\naltering the legal framework of Mitchell’s case. Manuel I\\nabrogated our circuit precedent foreclosing Fourth Amend-\\nment claims for unlawful pretrial detention after the initia-\\ntion of formal legal process. The Court held that “pretrial\\ndetention can violate the Fourth Amendment not only when\\nit precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal pro-\\ncess in a criminal case.” Manuel I, 137 S. Ct. at 918.\\n\\f6 No. 16-1907\\n\\n Discarding the “malicious prosecution” analogy, the\\nCourt grounded its analysis in the basic Fourth Amendment\\nprinciple that law enforcement must have probable cause to\\ndetain a person on suspicion of a crime:\\n The Fourth Amendment prohibits government\\n officials from detaining a person in the absence\\n of probable cause. That can happen when the\\n police hold someone without any reason before\\n the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But\\n it can also occur when legal process itself goes\\n wrong—when, for example, a judge’s proba-\\n ble-cause determination is predicated solely on\\n a police officer’s false statements. Then, too, a\\n person is confined without constitutionally ad-\\n equate justification. Legal process has gone\\n forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the\\n Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause require-\\n ment. And for that reason, it cannot extinguish\\n the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim—or\\n somehow … convert that claim into one\\n founded on the Due Process Clause.\\nId. at 918–19 (citations omitted). So it’s now clear that “the\\nFourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial\\ndetention even beyond the start of legal process.” Id. at 920.\\n Manuel I recasts the legal framework for part of Mitchell’s\\ncase. To the extent that her claim is one for unlawful deten-\\ntion without probable cause, it may survive beyond the\\npleading stage—provided, however, that she sued on time.\\nManuel I did not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the\\nCourt returned Elijah Manuel’s case to this court to decide\\nthat question. Id. at 921–22. On remand the Manuel panel\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 7\\n\\nreheard the case and recently held that a claim for unlawful\\npretrial detention accrues when the detention ceases.\\nManuel II, 903 F.3d at 670.\\n In light of these developments, we asked the parties to\\naddress the timeliness of Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\\nclaim under Manuel II. A two-year limitations period, bor-\\nrowed from state law, governs § 1983 claims in Illinois,\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388–89 (2007), but the parties\\ndisagree about when that two-year clock started to run.\\n Mitchell contends that her Fourth Amendment claim ac-\\ncrued on August 22, 2013, when the state judge entered a\\nverdict of acquittal in her criminal case. She filed suit on\\nMay 23, 2014, less than two years later, so if she is correct on\\nthe accrual question, her claim is timely.\\n At first blush Mitchell’s position is hard to square with\\nManuel II, which as we’ve noted held that a Fourth Amend-\\nment claim for unlawful pretrial detention accrues when the\\ndetention ends, not when the prosecution ends. Mitchell was\\nnot detained beyond her initial arrest; she bonded out the\\nsame day and suffered no further pretrial detention. To\\novercome this impediment, Mitchell argues that despite her\\npretrial release, she remained “in custody” until she was\\nexonerated at trial. For support she draws on the law of\\nhabeas corpus, which considers a person who is released on\\nbail to be “in custody” for purposes of testing the legality of\\nthe custody via the writ. See Burris v. Ryan, 397 F.2d 553, 555\\n(7th Cir. 1968) (“[O]ne under arrest, but at large on bail, is\\nentitled to a writ the same as if the arrest was accompanied\\nby actual imprisonment.”) (quoting Mackenzie v. Barrett, 141\\nF. 964, 966 (7th Cir. 1905))).\\n\\f8 No. 16-1907\\n\\n We’re skeptical about the habeas analogy. The long and\\ncomplex history of habeas corpus in England reveals that the\\nwrit could issue even when the petitioner found himself in\\n“something less than close physical confinement.” Jones v.\\nCunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 238 (1963). We hesitate to apply\\nthe lessons of that historical record beyond its own context.\\nMoreover, there are important differences between modern\\nhabeas corpus and the protections of the Fourth Amend-\\nment. Habeas corpus has expanded into a statutory frame-\\nwork for federal-court review of state convictions tainted by\\negregious federal constitutional error. The Fourth Amend-\\nment, by contrast, guards against unreasonable seizures.\\nAnd seizures, whether discrete or continuous, are events—\\nnot outcomes. Because these bodies of law address different\\nwrongs, we’re not ready to assume that “custody” in the\\nformer context necessarily constitutes “seizure” in the latter.\\n The defendants posit that under Manuel II Mitchell’s sei-\\nzure ended when she was released on bond immediately\\nafter her arrest on August 17, 2011. This suit came more than\\ntwo years later, so if they’re right, Mitchell’s Fourth\\nAmendment claim is untimely.\\n This argument overlooks the possibility that pretrial re-\\nlease might be construed as a “seizure” for Fourth Amend-\\nment purposes if the conditions of that release impose\\nsignificant restrictions on liberty. Several of our sister cir-\\ncuits have adopted this approach. See, e.g., Evans v. Ball,\\n168 F.3d 856, 861 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that a seizure\\noccurred where the plaintiff had to “obtain permission\\nbefore leaving the state, report regularly to pretrial services,\\nsign a personal recognizance bond, and provide federal\\nofficers with financial and identifying information”), abrogat-\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 9\\n\\ned on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th\\nCir. 2003). Two circuits have even gone so far as to character-\\nize the obligation to appear in court, standing alone, as an\\nongoing seizure. Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358,\\n366–67 (3d Cir. 2016); Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105, 112 (2d\\nCir. 2013). This appears to be a minority position, however.\\nSee Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2001)\\n(“[R]un-of-the-mill conditions of pretrial release do not fit\\ncomfortably within the recognized parameters of the term\\n[seizure].”); see also Harrington v. City of Nashua, 610 F.3d 24,\\n32 (1st Cir. 2010); Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220,\\n1236 (11th Cir. 2004); Cummin v. North, 731 F. App’x 465, 473\\n(6th Cir. 2018). In any event, there is out-of-circuit support\\nfor the proposition that the concept of “seizure” under the\\nFourth Amendment extends beyond physical detention.\\n We haven’t given a Fourth Amendment “seizure” quite\\nsuch a broad construction. See Bielanski v. County of Kane,\\n550 F.3d 632, 642 (7th Cir. 2008) (characterizing a summons,\\ntravel restriction, and interview requirement as “insufficient\\nrestraints on freedom of movement to constitute a seizure”).\\nAnd until the Supreme Court spoke in Manuel I, two aspects\\nof our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence made the prospect\\nof a “nondetention seizure” quite unlikely in this circuit.\\nFirst, we rejected the concept of a continuous seizure. See\\nWelton v. Anderson, 770 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2014) (collect-\\ning cases). Second, we characterized Fourth Amendment\\nclaims as only viable “up to the point of arraignment.” Id.\\nThe latter proposition was plainly abrogated in Manuel I. But\\nthe effect of Manuel I on the Fourth Amendment status of\\npretrial release conditions is less certain. The panel in Manuel\\nII had no occasion to address the question because Elijah\\n\\f10 No. 16-1907\\n\\nManuel was held in jail until the charges against him were\\ndropped.\\n We have misgivings about construing a simple obligation\\nto appear in court—a uniform condition of any pretrial\\nrelease—as a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes.\\nConverting every traffic ticket into a nascent Fourth\\nAmendment claim strikes us as an aggressive reading of the\\nconstitutional text. And the canonical test for seizures re-\\nmains whether a state official has “terminate[d] or re-\\nstrain[ed]” an individual’s “freedom of movement” such\\nthat “a reasonable person would have believed that he was\\nnot free to leave.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254–55\\n(2007) (citations omitted). Whether pretrial-release condi-\\ntions satisfy that standard—and if so, which ones—will have\\nto be resolved in this circuit in the wake of Manuel I and II.\\n On this record, however, we are unable to decide the\\nmatter. The parties haven’t briefed the legal question of the\\nscope of a Fourth Amendment “seizure” in this context. And\\neven if we decided to reach the merits, we lack sufficient\\ninformation about Mitchell’s conditions of release to deter-\\nmine if she remained “seized” while on pretrial release. In\\nher supplemental filing, Mitchell simply pointed to the bond\\nconditions imposed by Illinois law. See 725 ILL. COMP.\\nSTAT. 5/110-10(a)(1)–(3) (2006) (requiring a person released\\non bond to attend a court hearing and seek permission\\nbefore leaving the state). She also noted that a judge may\\nimpose additional release conditions. But we don’t know\\nwhether the judge did so in her case.\\n For now, all we can say is that in light of Manuel I,\\nMitchell’s Fourth Amendment claim was wrongly dismissed\\nbased on our now-abrogated circuit caselaw. But the timeli-\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 11\\n\\nness of the claim remains an open question, and gaps in the\\nbriefing and record preclude our ability to answer it. We\\ntherefore reverse and remand for further proceedings con-\\nsistent with this opinion.\\n Mitchell’s remaining arguments require little comment.\\nShe raises procedural objections to the judge’s handling of\\nher motion for an extension of time to seek leave to file a\\nsecond amended complaint. With the exception of the\\nFourth Amendment claim, we find no abuse of discretion.1\\n For the foregoing reasons and only on the Fourth\\nAmendment claim, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND\\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all\\nother respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n1 Mitchell’s counsel identified two other claims as potential candidates\\nfor inclusion in an amended complaint: (1) a claim for conspiracy to\\nviolate Mitchell’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1985(3); and (2) an additional § 1983 claim for “abuse of process” in\\nviolation of the First Amendment. Mitchell has not seriously pressed\\nthese claims on appeal.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":174,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578370,"string":"4,578,370"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"S. David Goldberg v. Michael Frerichs"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-2432"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-2432\\nS. DAVID GOLDBERG,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 3792 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED DECEMBER 14, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. An earlier opinion in this\\ncase concluded that people whose property is taken into cus-\\ntody by Illinois under the state’s Disposition of Unclaimed\\nProperty Act, 765 ILCS 1026/15-607, are entitled to receive\\nthe time value of their property (that is, interest or other\\nearnings), less reasonable custodial fees. Kolton v. Frerichs,\\n869 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735\\nF.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013). On remand the district court de-\\n\\f2 No. 18-2432\\n\\nclined to certify the proposed class, ruling that, despite what\\nour opinion said, owners of property in the state’s custody\\nare entitled to be compensated for the time value of money\\nonly if the property was earning interest at the moment the\\nstate took it into custody. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51062 (N.D.\\nIll. Mar. 28, 2018). This meant that the class had internal di-\\nvisions that made certification inappropriate. The court then\\ngranted summary judgment to the state on the claim of S.\\nDavid Goldberg, one of the putative class representatives,\\nwhose property had not been earning interest before the\\nstate took custody of it. The judge entered a partial final\\njudgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), leading to this appeal.\\n For the proposition that the owner receives the proper-\\nty’s time value only if the property was earning interest in\\nprivate hands the district court relied principally on Cwik v.\\nTopinka, 389 Ill. App. 3d 21 (2009), a state court’s decision\\nthat precedes both Kolton and Cerajeski and interprets a state\\nstatute rather than the Takings Clause of the Constitution.\\nThe proposition is untenable, as we have already explained:\\n The Supreme Court has held that the Takings Clause protects the\\n time value of money just as much as it does money itself. Brown\\n v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216, 235 (2003); Phillips\\n v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 165–72 (1998); Webb’s\\n Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 162–65 (1980).\\n In Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013), we applied\\n these precedents to an Indiana statute like the Illinois statute in\\n this case. We held that a state may not take custody of property\\n and retain income that the property earns. A state may charge a\\n bookkeeping fee, which for small accounts may exceed the prop-\\n erty’s time value, but must allow the owner the benefit of the\\n property’s earnings, however large or small they turn out to be.\\n Id. at 578–80.\\n\\fNo. 18-2432 3\\n\\nKolton, 869 F.3d at 533. The property’s owner is entitled to\\n“income that the property earns” less custodial fees; what\\nthe property earns in the state’s hands does not depend on\\nwhat it had been earning in the owner’s hands.\\n To see this, consider a simple example. Owner puts a rare\\ncoin in a safe deposit box, then neglects to pay the annual\\nrental. Bank turns the coin over to the state under the Dispo-\\nsition of Unclaimed Property Act. The state sells the coin and\\ninvests the proceeds. The coin was not earning interest while\\nin the safe deposit box but was an investment property:\\nOwner hoped that its market price would rise. If the state\\nkept the coin and returned it to Owner on demand, then the\\nstate would not owe interest; Owner could sell the coin and\\nobtain any change in value while it was in the state’s custo-\\ndy. But if the state sells the coin and cuts off the possibility of\\nappreciation, then Owner is entitled to the earnings on the\\ninvested cash as the best substitute. The fact that the coin\\nwas not earning interest in the safe deposit box would not\\ndetract from the fact that its price could rise. The loss of that\\ntime value is compensated by giving Owner the benefit of\\ninterim earnings.\\n Goldberg did not have a coin. He had a check—or, ra-\\nther, the payor that had made out a check to Goldberg had\\nthe instrument because he had not claimed it, and the payor\\ndelivered it to the state when the statute required. A check\\nrepresents cash, which cannot appreciate as a coin, stamp, or\\npainting might. But the principle is the same: cash has time\\nvalue even if not invested. Holding cash is sensible for a per-\\nson who fears that prices of stocks, bonds, and other invest-\\nments will decline. If the state turns the check into cash and\\nmakes an investment on the owner’s behalf (and against the\\n\\f4 No. 18-2432\\n\\nwishes of someone who did not want to invest), then it is vi-\\ntal to turn any gain over to the owner. The Takings Clause\\ndoes not set up a situation in which someone who wanted to\\nbe “in cash” bears the risk of loss as market conditions\\nchange without any prospect of offseming gain. That would\\nmake the owner worse off. (To put this differently, cash has\\nan option value—the option to invest or refrain from invest-\\ning—that is lost if the state invests without the owner’s con-\\nsent. That loss has a compensable value.)\\n Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington holds that a state\\nneed not hand over earnings if the amount of the principal is\\nso small that (in the Court’s words) it “cannot earn net inter-\\nest”—in other words, when administrative expenses exceed\\nthe return on investment. 538 U.S. at 224. The statutory sys-\\ntem under review in Brown required lawyers to turn over\\nsmall client trust funds so that they could be pooled, and\\nwhen pooled earn net interest. The principal would be re-\\nturned to counsel when they needed to disburse it to clients;\\nthe state kept the interest for other uses. The Justices con-\\ncluded that this system did not offend the Takings Clause\\nbecause, by definition, the money could not have earned a\\nnet return in the absence of the pooling and the owner could\\nnot have lost anything. No loss, no need for compensation.\\nId. at 235–41. Illinois could use Brown on remand to contend\\nthat it does not owe interest on small amounts, such as the\\n$100 it held on behalf of Goldberg. Amounts as slight as $100\\nprobably cannot earn net interest. But this has nothing to do\\nwith how the owner held or invested the money or other\\nproperty before it came into the state’s hands.\\n It may be hard to administer the line established by\\nBrown. That will be among the district court’s tasks if the\\n\\fNo. 18-2432 5\\n\\nstate contends on remand that particular parcels in its custo-\\ndy could not earn net interest in private hands. All we decide\\ntoday is that it does not mamer under Brown, or any other\\ndecision by the Supreme Court or this court, whether prop-\\nerty that is able to earn net interest was in an interest-bearing\\naccount before its transfer to the state. (This conclusion also\\nmay lead the district court to reconsider its ruling on class\\ncertification.)\\n The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for\\nproceedings consistent with Kolton and this opinion.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355623/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578370/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: S. David Goldberg v. Michael Frerichs\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-2432\nS. DAVID GOLDBERG,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\nMICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois,\n Defendant-Appellee.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 C 3792 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n SUBMITTED DECEMBER 14, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. An earlier opinion in this\ncase concluded that people whose property is taken into cus-\ntody by Illinois under the state’s Disposition of Unclaimed\nProperty Act, 765 ILCS 1026/15-607, are entitled to receive\nthe time value of their property (that is, interest or other\nearnings), less reasonable custodial fees. Kolton v. Frerichs,\n869 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735\nF.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013). On remand the district court de-\n\f2 No. 18-2432\n\nclined to certify the proposed class, ruling that, despite what\nour opinion said, owners of property in the state’s custody\nare entitled to be compensated for the time value of money\nonly if the property was earning interest at the moment the\nstate took it into custody. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51062 (N.D.\nIll. Mar. 28, 2018). This meant that the class had internal di-\nvisions that made certification inappropriate. The court then\ngranted summary judgment to the state on the claim of S.\nDavid Goldberg, one of the putative class representatives,\nwhose property had not been earning interest before the\nstate took custody of it. The judge entered a partial final\njudgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), leading to this appeal.\n For the proposition that the owner receives the proper-\nty’s time value only if the property was earning interest in\nprivate hands the district court relied principally on Cwik v.\nTopinka, 389 Ill. App. 3d 21 (2009), a state court’s decision\nthat precedes both Kolton and Cerajeski and interprets a state\nstatute rather than the Takings Clause of the Constitution.\nThe proposition is untenable, as we have already explained:\n The Supreme Court has held that the Takings Clause protects the\n time value of money just as much as it does money itself. Brown\n v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216, 235 (2003); Phillips\n v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 165–72 (1998); Webb’s\n Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 162–65 (1980).\n In Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013), we applied\n these precedents to an Indiana statute like the Illinois statute in\n this case. We held that a state may not take custody of property\n and retain income that the property earns. A state may charge a\n bookkeeping fee, which for small accounts may exceed the prop-\n erty’s time value, but must allow the owner the benefit of the\n property’s earnings, however large or small they turn out to be.\n Id. at 578–80.\n\fNo. 18-2432 3\n\nKolton, 869 F.3d at 533. The property’s owner is entitled to\n“income that the property earns” less custodial fees; what\nthe property earns in the state’s hands does not depend on\nwhat it had been earning in the owner’s hands.\n To see this, consider a simple example. Owner puts a rare\ncoin in a safe deposit box, then neglects to pay the annual\nrental. Bank turns the coin over to the state under the Dispo-\nsition of Unclaimed Property Act. The state sells the coin and\ninvests the proceeds. The coin was not earning interest while\nin the safe deposit box but was an investment property:\nOwner hoped that its market price would rise. If the state\nkept the coin and returned it to Owner on demand, then the\nstate would not owe interest; Owner could sell the coin and\nobtain any change in value while it was in the state’s custo-\ndy. But if the state sells the coin and cuts off the possibility of\nappreciation, then Owner is entitled to the earnings on the\ninvested cash as the best substitute. The fact that the coin\nwas not earning interest in the safe deposit box would not\ndetract from the fact that its price could rise. The loss of that\ntime value is compensated by giving Owner the benefit of\ninterim earnings.\n Goldberg did not have a coin. He had a check—or, ra-\nther, the payor that had made out a check to Goldberg had\nthe instrument because he had not claimed it, and the payor\ndelivered it to the state when the statute required. A check\nrepresents cash, which cannot appreciate as a coin, stamp, or\npainting might. But the principle is the same: cash has time\nvalue even if not invested. Holding cash is sensible for a per-\nson who fears that prices of stocks, bonds, and other invest-\nments will decline. If the state turns the check into cash and\nmakes an investment on the owner’s behalf (and against the\n\f4 No. 18-2432\n\nwishes of someone who did not want to invest), then it is vi-\ntal to turn any gain over to the owner. The Takings Clause\ndoes not set up a situation in which someone who wanted to\nbe “in cash” bears the risk of loss as market conditions\nchange without any prospect of offseming gain. That would\nmake the owner worse off. (To put this differently, cash has\nan option value—the option to invest or refrain from invest-\ning—that is lost if the state invests without the owner’s con-\nsent. That loss has a compensable value.)\n Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington holds that a state\nneed not hand over earnings if the amount of the principal is\nso small that (in the Court’s words) it “cannot earn net inter-\nest”—in other words, when administrative expenses exceed\nthe return on investment. 538 U.S. at 224. The statutory sys-\ntem under review in Brown required lawyers to turn over\nsmall client trust funds so that they could be pooled, and\nwhen pooled earn net interest. The principal would be re-\nturned to counsel when they needed to disburse it to clients;\nthe state kept the interest for other uses. The Justices con-\ncluded that this system did not offend the Takings Clause\nbecause, by definition, the money could not have earned a\nnet return in the absence of the pooling and the owner could\nnot have lost anything. No loss, no need for compensation.\nId. at 235–41. Illinois could use Brown on remand to contend\nthat it does not owe interest on small amounts, such as the\n$100 it held on behalf of Goldberg. Amounts as slight as $100\nprobably cannot earn net interest. But this has nothing to do\nwith how the owner held or invested the money or other\nproperty before it came into the state’s hands.\n It may be hard to administer the line established by\nBrown. That will be among the district court’s tasks if the\n\fNo. 18-2432 5\n\nstate contends on remand that particular parcels in its custo-\ndy could not earn net interest in private hands. All we decide\ntoday is that it does not mamer under Brown, or any other\ndecision by the Supreme Court or this court, whether prop-\nerty that is able to earn net interest was in an interest-bearing\naccount before its transfer to the state. (This conclusion also\nmay lead the district court to reconsider its ruling on class\ncertification.)\n The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for\nproceedings consistent with Kolton and this opinion.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: S. David Goldberg v. Michael Frerichs\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\n\\nNo. 18-2432\\nS. DAVID GOLDBERG,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\nMICHAEL W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois,\\n Defendant-Appellee.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 3792 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n SUBMITTED DECEMBER 14, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.\\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. An earlier opinion in this\\ncase concluded that people whose property is taken into cus-\\ntody by Illinois under the state’s Disposition of Unclaimed\\nProperty Act, 765 ILCS 1026/15-607, are entitled to receive\\nthe time value of their property (that is, interest or other\\nearnings), less reasonable custodial fees. Kolton v. Frerichs,\\n869 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735\\nF.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013). On remand the district court de-\\n\\f2 No. 18-2432\\n\\nclined to certify the proposed class, ruling that, despite what\\nour opinion said, owners of property in the state’s custody\\nare entitled to be compensated for the time value of money\\nonly if the property was earning interest at the moment the\\nstate took it into custody. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51062 (N.D.\\nIll. Mar. 28, 2018). This meant that the class had internal di-\\nvisions that made certification inappropriate. The court then\\ngranted summary judgment to the state on the claim of S.\\nDavid Goldberg, one of the putative class representatives,\\nwhose property had not been earning interest before the\\nstate took custody of it. The judge entered a partial final\\njudgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), leading to this appeal.\\n For the proposition that the owner receives the proper-\\nty’s time value only if the property was earning interest in\\nprivate hands the district court relied principally on Cwik v.\\nTopinka, 389 Ill. App. 3d 21 (2009), a state court’s decision\\nthat precedes both Kolton and Cerajeski and interprets a state\\nstatute rather than the Takings Clause of the Constitution.\\nThe proposition is untenable, as we have already explained:\\n The Supreme Court has held that the Takings Clause protects the\\n time value of money just as much as it does money itself. Brown\\n v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. 216, 235 (2003); Phillips\\n v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156, 165–72 (1998); Webb’s\\n Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155, 162–65 (1980).\\n In Cerajeski v. Zoeller, 735 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2013), we applied\\n these precedents to an Indiana statute like the Illinois statute in\\n this case. We held that a state may not take custody of property\\n and retain income that the property earns. A state may charge a\\n bookkeeping fee, which for small accounts may exceed the prop-\\n erty’s time value, but must allow the owner the benefit of the\\n property’s earnings, however large or small they turn out to be.\\n Id. at 578–80.\\n\\fNo. 18-2432 3\\n\\nKolton, 869 F.3d at 533. The property’s owner is entitled to\\n“income that the property earns” less custodial fees; what\\nthe property earns in the state’s hands does not depend on\\nwhat it had been earning in the owner’s hands.\\n To see this, consider a simple example. Owner puts a rare\\ncoin in a safe deposit box, then neglects to pay the annual\\nrental. Bank turns the coin over to the state under the Dispo-\\nsition of Unclaimed Property Act. The state sells the coin and\\ninvests the proceeds. The coin was not earning interest while\\nin the safe deposit box but was an investment property:\\nOwner hoped that its market price would rise. If the state\\nkept the coin and returned it to Owner on demand, then the\\nstate would not owe interest; Owner could sell the coin and\\nobtain any change in value while it was in the state’s custo-\\ndy. But if the state sells the coin and cuts off the possibility of\\nappreciation, then Owner is entitled to the earnings on the\\ninvested cash as the best substitute. The fact that the coin\\nwas not earning interest in the safe deposit box would not\\ndetract from the fact that its price could rise. The loss of that\\ntime value is compensated by giving Owner the benefit of\\ninterim earnings.\\n Goldberg did not have a coin. He had a check—or, ra-\\nther, the payor that had made out a check to Goldberg had\\nthe instrument because he had not claimed it, and the payor\\ndelivered it to the state when the statute required. A check\\nrepresents cash, which cannot appreciate as a coin, stamp, or\\npainting might. But the principle is the same: cash has time\\nvalue even if not invested. Holding cash is sensible for a per-\\nson who fears that prices of stocks, bonds, and other invest-\\nments will decline. If the state turns the check into cash and\\nmakes an investment on the owner’s behalf (and against the\\n\\f4 No. 18-2432\\n\\nwishes of someone who did not want to invest), then it is vi-\\ntal to turn any gain over to the owner. The Takings Clause\\ndoes not set up a situation in which someone who wanted to\\nbe “in cash” bears the risk of loss as market conditions\\nchange without any prospect of offseming gain. That would\\nmake the owner worse off. (To put this differently, cash has\\nan option value—the option to invest or refrain from invest-\\ning—that is lost if the state invests without the owner’s con-\\nsent. That loss has a compensable value.)\\n Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington holds that a state\\nneed not hand over earnings if the amount of the principal is\\nso small that (in the Court’s words) it “cannot earn net inter-\\nest”—in other words, when administrative expenses exceed\\nthe return on investment. 538 U.S. at 224. The statutory sys-\\ntem under review in Brown required lawyers to turn over\\nsmall client trust funds so that they could be pooled, and\\nwhen pooled earn net interest. The principal would be re-\\nturned to counsel when they needed to disburse it to clients;\\nthe state kept the interest for other uses. The Justices con-\\ncluded that this system did not offend the Takings Clause\\nbecause, by definition, the money could not have earned a\\nnet return in the absence of the pooling and the owner could\\nnot have lost anything. No loss, no need for compensation.\\nId. at 235–41. Illinois could use Brown on remand to contend\\nthat it does not owe interest on small amounts, such as the\\n$100 it held on behalf of Goldberg. Amounts as slight as $100\\nprobably cannot earn net interest. But this has nothing to do\\nwith how the owner held or invested the money or other\\nproperty before it came into the state’s hands.\\n It may be hard to administer the line established by\\nBrown. That will be among the district court’s tasks if the\\n\\fNo. 18-2432 5\\n\\nstate contends on remand that particular parcels in its custo-\\ndy could not earn net interest in private hands. All we decide\\ntoday is that it does not mamer under Brown, or any other\\ndecision by the Supreme Court or this court, whether prop-\\nerty that is able to earn net interest was in an interest-bearing\\naccount before its transfer to the state. (This conclusion also\\nmay lead the district court to reconsider its ruling on class\\ncertification.)\\n The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for\\nproceedings consistent with Kolton and this opinion.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":175,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578403,"string":"4,578,403"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Sharon Mitchell v. City of Elgin, Illinois"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"16-1907"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Diane S. Sykes\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 16-1907\\nSHARON MITCHELL,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 14 C 3457 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JULY 6, 2017 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.*\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Sharon Mitchell enrolled in an online\\ncriminal-justice course offered by the Elgin Community\\nCollege. Her participation in the class did not go smoothly.\\nThe instructor—an officer of the Elgin Police Department—\\n\\n*CircuitJudge Richard A. Posner participated in the initial stages of this\\nappeal but retired from the court on September 2, 2017. This case was\\nresolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).\\n\\f2 No. 16-1907\\n\\neventually advised her that she was failing the course. Soon\\nafter, the Elgin Police Department received anonymous\\nthreats and a harassing email targeting the officer. A second\\nofficer swore out a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\\nelectronic communication harassment. She was arrested,\\nimmediately bonded out, and two years later was acquitted\\nafter a brief bench trial. Mitchell then sued the City of Elgin\\nand several of its officers seeking damages for wrongful\\nprosecution under various federal and state legal theories.\\n A district judge dismissed the case, concluding that the\\nfederal claims were either untimely or not cognizable and\\nrelinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law\\nclaims. Mitchell appealed. We heard argument in July 2017\\nbut held the case to await further developments in the wake\\nof the Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel v. City of Joliet\\n(“Manuel I”), 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017), which overturned the\\ncircuit caselaw that defeated Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\\nclaim below. Manuel I clarified that pretrial detention with-\\nout probable cause is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 920. But the Court\\ndid not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the Court\\nleft that issue open for this court to decide on remand. Id. at\\n922. In September a panel of this court answered that linger-\\ning question, holding that a Fourth Amendment claim for\\nunlawful pretrial detention accrues when the detention\\nends. Manuel v. City of Joliet (“Manuel II”), 903 F.3d 667, 670\\n(7th Cir. 2018).\\n We asked the parties to file position statements address-\\ning whether Mitchell’s claim is timely under Manuel II. They\\nhave done so. Based on the current state of the record and\\nbriefing, however, we find ourselves unable to decide the\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 3\\n\\ntimeliness question. The parties have not adequately ad-\\ndressed whether and under what circumstances a person\\nwho is arrested but released on bond remains “seized” for\\nFourth Amendment purposes. Moreover, we do not know\\nwhat conditions of release, if any, were imposed on Mitchell\\nwhen she bonded out after her arrest. The most we can say\\nat this juncture is that Mitchell might have a viable Fourth\\nAmendment claim under Manuel I and II. We therefore\\nreverse the judgment on that claim alone and remand to the\\ndistrict court for further proceedings consistent with this\\nopinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.\\n I. Background\\n We take the following factual account from Mitchell’s\\namended complaint. In the fall of 2010, Mitchell enrolled in\\nan online criminal-justice course at Elgin Community Col-\\nlege taught by Elgin Police Officer Ana Lalley. Officer Lalley\\nrequired her students to post responses to discussion topics\\nin an online forum. One topic related to students’ attitudes\\ntoward law enforcement. Mitchell’s posts on this topic were\\nso upsetting to Officer Lalley that she removed them, barred\\nMitchell from posting in the forum, and informed her that\\nshe may have violated school policies regarding student\\nbehavior. The friction between the two continued the follow-\\ning semester, and at some point Lalley informed Mitchell\\nthat she was failing the course.\\n In May 2011 the Police Department received two anony-\\nmous threats against Officer Lalley. First, Officer Todd\\nRamljak, another Elgin police officer who also taught at the\\ncollege, found a document containing threats against Lalley\\nin his school mailbox. Officer Ramljak filed a report about\\nthe incident. Two weeks later Officer Kevin Senne filed a\\n\\f4 No. 16-1907\\n\\nsupplement to Ramljak’s report stating that someone had\\nsent a harassing email to Lalley’s college email account.\\nLalley identified Mitchell as the only possible source of the\\nthreats and the harassing email. Sergeant Danner (first name\\nunknown) approved and signed these reports. In August\\n2011 Senne filed a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\\nelectronic communication harassment. A warrant for her\\narrest followed, and on August 17, 2011, Mitchell was arrest-\\ned and transferred to the custody of the Kane County\\nSheriff’s Department. She posted a $250 bond and was\\nreleased that same day. The amended complaint is silent\\nabout the conditions of her release.\\n The case dragged on for two years. Mitchell was offered\\nseveral plea deals but declined them all. On August 22, 2013,\\nshe was acquitted after a one-day bench trial.\\n On May 23, 2014, Mitchell filed suit pro se against the\\nCity of Elgin and several police officers seeking damages\\nunder § 1983 for violation of her rights under the First\\nAmendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protec-\\ntion and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend-\\nment. She also asserted various claims under state law. The\\ndistrict judge dismissed the federal claims and most of the\\nstate claims but allowed Mitchell to go forward on a state-\\nlaw malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Senne and\\nSergeant Danner and an indemnification claim against the\\nCity. The judge recruited pro bono counsel to assist Mitchell\\non these remaining claims.\\n The defendants moved to alter the judgment, urging the\\njudge to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-\\nlaw claims since no federal claim remained. Through newly\\nrecruited counsel, Mitchell moved for an extension of time to\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 5\\n\\nrespond to the motion and to seek leave to file a second\\namended complaint. The judge ordered counsel to identify\\nthe claims he proposed to add in an amended complaint.\\n Mitchell’s counsel responded as directed. As relevant\\nhere, counsel explained that he sought leave to replead the\\n§ 1983 claim for “malicious prosecution,” framing it as a\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process\\nClause. The judge declined to allow the proposed amend-\\nment, relying on longstanding circuit precedent holding that\\nthe Fourth Amendment has no role to play after the initia-\\ntion of formal legal process (e.g., an arrest warrant or a\\nprobable-cause hearing) and that the existence of adequate\\nremedies under Illinois law foreclosed a federal “malicious\\nprosecution” claim under the Due Process Clause. Newsome\\nv. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 2001). The judge then\\nreconsidered his earlier decision to retain supplemental\\njurisdiction over the state-law claims that had survived\\ndismissal on the pleadings. He reversed course, relinquished\\nsupplemental jurisdiction, and entered final judgment for\\nthe defendants. Mitchell appealed.\\n II. Analysis\\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel I arrived just as\\nthe briefing of this appeal was wrapping up, substantially\\naltering the legal framework of Mitchell’s case. Manuel I\\nabrogated our circuit precedent foreclosing Fourth Amend-\\nment claims for unlawful pretrial detention after the initia-\\ntion of formal legal process. The Court held that “pretrial\\ndetention can violate the Fourth Amendment not only when\\nit precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal pro-\\ncess in a criminal case.” Manuel I, 137 S. Ct. at 918.\\n\\f6 No. 16-1907\\n\\n Discarding the “malicious prosecution” analogy, the\\nCourt grounded its analysis in the basic Fourth Amendment\\nprinciple that law enforcement must have probable cause to\\ndetain a person on suspicion of a crime:\\n The Fourth Amendment prohibits government\\n officials from detaining a person in the absence\\n of probable cause. That can happen when the\\n police hold someone without any reason before\\n the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But\\n it can also occur when legal process itself goes\\n wrong—when, for example, a judge’s proba-\\n ble-cause determination is predicated solely on\\n a police officer’s false statements. Then, too, a\\n person is confined without constitutionally ad-\\n equate justification. Legal process has gone\\n forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the\\n Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause require-\\n ment. And for that reason, it cannot extinguish\\n the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim—or\\n somehow … convert that claim into one\\n founded on the Due Process Clause.\\nId. at 918–19 (citations omitted). So it’s now clear that “the\\nFourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial\\ndetention even beyond the start of legal process.” Id. at 920.\\n Manuel I recasts the legal framework for part of Mitchell’s\\ncase. To the extent that her claim is one for unlawful deten-\\ntion without probable cause, it may survive beyond the\\npleading stage—provided, however, that she sued on time.\\nManuel I did not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the\\nCourt returned Elijah Manuel’s case to this court to decide\\nthat question. Id. at 921–22. On remand the Manuel panel\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 7\\n\\nreheard the case and recently held that a claim for unlawful\\npretrial detention accrues when the detention ceases.\\nManuel II, 903 F.3d at 670.\\n In light of these developments, we asked the parties to\\naddress the timeliness of Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\\nclaim under Manuel II. A two-year limitations period, bor-\\nrowed from state law, governs § 1983 claims in Illinois,\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388–89 (2007), but the parties\\ndisagree about when that two-year clock started to run.\\n Mitchell contends that her Fourth Amendment claim ac-\\ncrued on August 22, 2013, when the state judge entered a\\nverdict of acquittal in her criminal case. She filed suit on\\nMay 23, 2014, less than two years later, so if she is correct on\\nthe accrual question, her claim is timely.\\n At first blush Mitchell’s position is hard to square with\\nManuel II, which as we’ve noted held that a Fourth Amend-\\nment claim for unlawful pretrial detention accrues when the\\ndetention ends, not when the prosecution ends. Mitchell was\\nnot detained beyond her initial arrest; she bonded out the\\nsame day and suffered no further pretrial detention. To\\novercome this impediment, Mitchell argues that despite her\\npretrial release, she remained “in custody” until she was\\nexonerated at trial. For support she draws on the law of\\nhabeas corpus, which considers a person who is released on\\nbail to be “in custody” for purposes of testing the legality of\\nthe custody via the writ. See Burris v. Ryan, 397 F.2d 553, 555\\n(7th Cir. 1968) (“[O]ne under arrest, but at large on bail, is\\nentitled to a writ the same as if the arrest was accompanied\\nby actual imprisonment.”) (quoting Mackenzie v. Barrett, 141\\nF. 964, 966 (7th Cir. 1905))).\\n\\f8 No. 16-1907\\n\\n We’re skeptical about the habeas analogy. The long and\\ncomplex history of habeas corpus in England reveals that the\\nwrit could issue even when the petitioner found himself in\\n“something less than close physical confinement.” Jones v.\\nCunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 238 (1963). We hesitate to apply\\nthe lessons of that historical record beyond its own context.\\nMoreover, there are important differences between modern\\nhabeas corpus and the protections of the Fourth Amend-\\nment. Habeas corpus has expanded into a statutory frame-\\nwork for federal-court review of state convictions tainted by\\negregious federal constitutional error. The Fourth Amend-\\nment, by contrast, guards against unreasonable seizures.\\nAnd seizures, whether discrete or continuous, are events—\\nnot outcomes. Because these bodies of law address different\\nwrongs, we’re not ready to assume that “custody” in the\\nformer context necessarily constitutes “seizure” in the latter.\\n The defendants posit that under Manuel II Mitchell’s sei-\\nzure ended when she was released on bond immediately\\nafter her arrest on August 17, 2011. This suit came more than\\ntwo years later, so if they’re right, Mitchell’s Fourth\\nAmendment claim is untimely.\\n This argument overlooks the possibility that pretrial re-\\nlease might be construed as a “seizure” for Fourth Amend-\\nment purposes if the conditions of that release impose\\nsignificant restrictions on liberty. Several of our sister cir-\\ncuits have adopted this approach. See, e.g., Evans v. Ball,\\n168 F.3d 856, 861 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that a seizure\\noccurred where the plaintiff had to “obtain permission\\nbefore leaving the state, report regularly to pretrial services,\\nsign a personal recognizance bond, and provide federal\\nofficers with financial and identifying information”), abrogat-\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 9\\n\\ned on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th\\nCir. 2003). Two circuits have even gone so far as to character-\\nize the obligation to appear in court, standing alone, as an\\nongoing seizure. Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358,\\n366–67 (3d Cir. 2016); Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105, 112 (2d\\nCir. 2013). This appears to be a minority position, however.\\nSee Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2001)\\n(“[R]un-of-the-mill conditions of pretrial release do not fit\\ncomfortably within the recognized parameters of the term\\n[seizure].”); see also Harrington v. City of Nashua, 610 F.3d 24,\\n32 (1st Cir. 2010); Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220,\\n1236 (11th Cir. 2004); Cummin v. North, 731 F. App’x 465, 473\\n(6th Cir. 2018). In any event, there is out-of-circuit support\\nfor the proposition that the concept of “seizure” under the\\nFourth Amendment extends beyond physical detention.\\n We haven’t given a Fourth Amendment “seizure” quite\\nsuch a broad construction. See Bielanski v. County of Kane,\\n550 F.3d 632, 642 (7th Cir. 2008) (characterizing a summons,\\ntravel restriction, and interview requirement as “insufficient\\nrestraints on freedom of movement to constitute a seizure”).\\nAnd until the Supreme Court spoke in Manuel I, two aspects\\nof our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence made the prospect\\nof a “nondetention seizure” quite unlikely in this circuit.\\nFirst, we rejected the concept of a continuous seizure. See\\nWelton v. Anderson, 770 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2014) (collect-\\ning cases). Second, we characterized Fourth Amendment\\nclaims as only viable “up to the point of arraignment.” Id.\\nThe latter proposition was plainly abrogated in Manuel I. But\\nthe effect of Manuel I on the Fourth Amendment status of\\npretrial release conditions is less certain. The panel in Manuel\\nII had no occasion to address the question because Elijah\\n\\f10 No. 16-1907\\n\\nManuel was held in jail until the charges against him were\\ndropped.\\n We have misgivings about construing a simple obligation\\nto appear in court—a uniform condition of any pretrial\\nrelease—as a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes.\\nConverting every traffic ticket into a nascent Fourth\\nAmendment claim strikes us as an aggressive reading of the\\nconstitutional text. And the canonical test for seizures re-\\nmains whether a state official has “terminate[d] or re-\\nstrain[ed]” an individual’s “freedom of movement” such\\nthat “a reasonable person would have believed that he was\\nnot free to leave.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254–55\\n(2007) (citations omitted). Whether pretrial-release condi-\\ntions satisfy that standard—and if so, which ones—will have\\nto be resolved in this circuit in the wake of Manuel I and II.\\n On this record, however, we are unable to decide the\\nmatter. The parties haven’t briefed the legal question of the\\nscope of a Fourth Amendment “seizure” in this context. And\\neven if we decided to reach the merits, we lack sufficient\\ninformation about Mitchell’s conditions of release to deter-\\nmine if she remained “seized” while on pretrial release. In\\nher supplemental filing, Mitchell simply pointed to the bond\\nconditions imposed by Illinois law. See 725 ILL. COMP.\\nSTAT. 5/110-10(a)(1)–(3) (2006) (requiring a person released\\non bond to attend a court hearing and seek permission\\nbefore leaving the state). She also noted that a judge may\\nimpose additional release conditions. But we don’t know\\nwhether the judge did so in her case.\\n For now, all we can say is that in light of Manuel I,\\nMitchell’s Fourth Amendment claim was wrongly dismissed\\nbased on our now-abrogated circuit caselaw. But the timeli-\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 11\\n\\nness of the claim remains an open question, and gaps in the\\nbriefing and record preclude our ability to answer it. We\\ntherefore reverse and remand for further proceedings con-\\nsistent with this opinion.\\n Mitchell’s remaining arguments require little comment.\\nShe raises procedural objections to the judge’s handling of\\nher motion for an extension of time to seek leave to file a\\nsecond amended complaint. With the exception of the\\nFourth Amendment claim, we find no abuse of discretion.1\\n For the foregoing reasons and only on the Fourth\\nAmendment claim, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND\\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all\\nother respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n1 Mitchell’s counsel identified two other claims as potential candidates\\nfor inclusion in an amended complaint: (1) a claim for conspiracy to\\nviolate Mitchell’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1985(3); and (2) an additional § 1983 claim for “abuse of process” in\\nviolation of the First Amendment. Mitchell has not seriously pressed\\nthese claims on appeal.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355656/\", \"author_raw\": \"Diane S. Sykes\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"SYKES\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578403/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Sharon Mitchell v. City of Elgin, Illinois\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 16-1907\nSHARON MITCHELL,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n v.\n\nCITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 14 C 3457 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED JULY 6, 2017 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.*\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Sharon Mitchell enrolled in an online\ncriminal-justice course offered by the Elgin Community\nCollege. Her participation in the class did not go smoothly.\nThe instructor—an officer of the Elgin Police Department—\n\n*CircuitJudge Richard A. Posner participated in the initial stages of this\nappeal but retired from the court on September 2, 2017. This case was\nresolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).\n\f2 No. 16-1907\n\neventually advised her that she was failing the course. Soon\nafter, the Elgin Police Department received anonymous\nthreats and a harassing email targeting the officer. A second\nofficer swore out a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\nelectronic communication harassment. She was arrested,\nimmediately bonded out, and two years later was acquitted\nafter a brief bench trial. Mitchell then sued the City of Elgin\nand several of its officers seeking damages for wrongful\nprosecution under various federal and state legal theories.\n A district judge dismissed the case, concluding that the\nfederal claims were either untimely or not cognizable and\nrelinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law\nclaims. Mitchell appealed. We heard argument in July 2017\nbut held the case to await further developments in the wake\nof the Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel v. City of Joliet\n(“Manuel I”), 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017), which overturned the\ncircuit caselaw that defeated Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\nclaim below. Manuel I clarified that pretrial detention with-\nout probable cause is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 920. But the Court\ndid not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the Court\nleft that issue open for this court to decide on remand. Id. at\n922. In September a panel of this court answered that linger-\ning question, holding that a Fourth Amendment claim for\nunlawful pretrial detention accrues when the detention\nends. Manuel v. City of Joliet (“Manuel II”), 903 F.3d 667, 670\n(7th Cir. 2018).\n We asked the parties to file position statements address-\ning whether Mitchell’s claim is timely under Manuel II. They\nhave done so. Based on the current state of the record and\nbriefing, however, we find ourselves unable to decide the\n\fNo. 16-1907 3\n\ntimeliness question. The parties have not adequately ad-\ndressed whether and under what circumstances a person\nwho is arrested but released on bond remains “seized” for\nFourth Amendment purposes. Moreover, we do not know\nwhat conditions of release, if any, were imposed on Mitchell\nwhen she bonded out after her arrest. The most we can say\nat this juncture is that Mitchell might have a viable Fourth\nAmendment claim under Manuel I and II. We therefore\nreverse the judgment on that claim alone and remand to the\ndistrict court for further proceedings consistent with this\nopinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.\n I. Background\n We take the following factual account from Mitchell’s\namended complaint. In the fall of 2010, Mitchell enrolled in\nan online criminal-justice course at Elgin Community Col-\nlege taught by Elgin Police Officer Ana Lalley. Officer Lalley\nrequired her students to post responses to discussion topics\nin an online forum. One topic related to students’ attitudes\ntoward law enforcement. Mitchell’s posts on this topic were\nso upsetting to Officer Lalley that she removed them, barred\nMitchell from posting in the forum, and informed her that\nshe may have violated school policies regarding student\nbehavior. The friction between the two continued the follow-\ning semester, and at some point Lalley informed Mitchell\nthat she was failing the course.\n In May 2011 the Police Department received two anony-\nmous threats against Officer Lalley. First, Officer Todd\nRamljak, another Elgin police officer who also taught at the\ncollege, found a document containing threats against Lalley\nin his school mailbox. Officer Ramljak filed a report about\nthe incident. Two weeks later Officer Kevin Senne filed a\n\f4 No. 16-1907\n\nsupplement to Ramljak’s report stating that someone had\nsent a harassing email to Lalley’s college email account.\nLalley identified Mitchell as the only possible source of the\nthreats and the harassing email. Sergeant Danner (first name\nunknown) approved and signed these reports. In August\n2011 Senne filed a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\nelectronic communication harassment. A warrant for her\narrest followed, and on August 17, 2011, Mitchell was arrest-\ned and transferred to the custody of the Kane County\nSheriff’s Department. She posted a $250 bond and was\nreleased that same day. The amended complaint is silent\nabout the conditions of her release.\n The case dragged on for two years. Mitchell was offered\nseveral plea deals but declined them all. On August 22, 2013,\nshe was acquitted after a one-day bench trial.\n On May 23, 2014, Mitchell filed suit pro se against the\nCity of Elgin and several police officers seeking damages\nunder § 1983 for violation of her rights under the First\nAmendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protec-\ntion and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend-\nment. She also asserted various claims under state law. The\ndistrict judge dismissed the federal claims and most of the\nstate claims but allowed Mitchell to go forward on a state-\nlaw malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Senne and\nSergeant Danner and an indemnification claim against the\nCity. The judge recruited pro bono counsel to assist Mitchell\non these remaining claims.\n The defendants moved to alter the judgment, urging the\njudge to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-\nlaw claims since no federal claim remained. Through newly\nrecruited counsel, Mitchell moved for an extension of time to\n\fNo. 16-1907 5\n\nrespond to the motion and to seek leave to file a second\namended complaint. The judge ordered counsel to identify\nthe claims he proposed to add in an amended complaint.\n Mitchell’s counsel responded as directed. As relevant\nhere, counsel explained that he sought leave to replead the\n§ 1983 claim for “malicious prosecution,” framing it as a\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process\nClause. The judge declined to allow the proposed amend-\nment, relying on longstanding circuit precedent holding that\nthe Fourth Amendment has no role to play after the initia-\ntion of formal legal process (e.g., an arrest warrant or a\nprobable-cause hearing) and that the existence of adequate\nremedies under Illinois law foreclosed a federal “malicious\nprosecution” claim under the Due Process Clause. Newsome\nv. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 2001). The judge then\nreconsidered his earlier decision to retain supplemental\njurisdiction over the state-law claims that had survived\ndismissal on the pleadings. He reversed course, relinquished\nsupplemental jurisdiction, and entered final judgment for\nthe defendants. Mitchell appealed.\n II. Analysis\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel I arrived just as\nthe briefing of this appeal was wrapping up, substantially\naltering the legal framework of Mitchell’s case. Manuel I\nabrogated our circuit precedent foreclosing Fourth Amend-\nment claims for unlawful pretrial detention after the initia-\ntion of formal legal process. The Court held that “pretrial\ndetention can violate the Fourth Amendment not only when\nit precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal pro-\ncess in a criminal case.” Manuel I, 137 S. Ct. at 918.\n\f6 No. 16-1907\n\n Discarding the “malicious prosecution” analogy, the\nCourt grounded its analysis in the basic Fourth Amendment\nprinciple that law enforcement must have probable cause to\ndetain a person on suspicion of a crime:\n The Fourth Amendment prohibits government\n officials from detaining a person in the absence\n of probable cause. That can happen when the\n police hold someone without any reason before\n the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But\n it can also occur when legal process itself goes\n wrong—when, for example, a judge’s proba-\n ble-cause determination is predicated solely on\n a police officer’s false statements. Then, too, a\n person is confined without constitutionally ad-\n equate justification. Legal process has gone\n forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the\n Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause require-\n ment. And for that reason, it cannot extinguish\n the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim—or\n somehow … convert that claim into one\n founded on the Due Process Clause.\nId. at 918–19 (citations omitted). So it’s now clear that “the\nFourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial\ndetention even beyond the start of legal process.” Id. at 920.\n Manuel I recasts the legal framework for part of Mitchell’s\ncase. To the extent that her claim is one for unlawful deten-\ntion without probable cause, it may survive beyond the\npleading stage—provided, however, that she sued on time.\nManuel I did not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the\nCourt returned Elijah Manuel’s case to this court to decide\nthat question. Id. at 921–22. On remand the Manuel panel\n\fNo. 16-1907 7\n\nreheard the case and recently held that a claim for unlawful\npretrial detention accrues when the detention ceases.\nManuel II, 903 F.3d at 670.\n In light of these developments, we asked the parties to\naddress the timeliness of Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\nclaim under Manuel II. A two-year limitations period, bor-\nrowed from state law, governs § 1983 claims in Illinois,\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388–89 (2007), but the parties\ndisagree about when that two-year clock started to run.\n Mitchell contends that her Fourth Amendment claim ac-\ncrued on August 22, 2013, when the state judge entered a\nverdict of acquittal in her criminal case. She filed suit on\nMay 23, 2014, less than two years later, so if she is correct on\nthe accrual question, her claim is timely.\n At first blush Mitchell’s position is hard to square with\nManuel II, which as we’ve noted held that a Fourth Amend-\nment claim for unlawful pretrial detention accrues when the\ndetention ends, not when the prosecution ends. Mitchell was\nnot detained beyond her initial arrest; she bonded out the\nsame day and suffered no further pretrial detention. To\novercome this impediment, Mitchell argues that despite her\npretrial release, she remained “in custody” until she was\nexonerated at trial. For support she draws on the law of\nhabeas corpus, which considers a person who is released on\nbail to be “in custody” for purposes of testing the legality of\nthe custody via the writ. See Burris v. Ryan, 397 F.2d 553, 555\n(7th Cir. 1968) (“[O]ne under arrest, but at large on bail, is\nentitled to a writ the same as if the arrest was accompanied\nby actual imprisonment.”) (quoting Mackenzie v. Barrett, 141\nF. 964, 966 (7th Cir. 1905))).\n\f8 No. 16-1907\n\n We’re skeptical about the habeas analogy. The long and\ncomplex history of habeas corpus in England reveals that the\nwrit could issue even when the petitioner found himself in\n“something less than close physical confinement.” Jones v.\nCunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 238 (1963). We hesitate to apply\nthe lessons of that historical record beyond its own context.\nMoreover, there are important differences between modern\nhabeas corpus and the protections of the Fourth Amend-\nment. Habeas corpus has expanded into a statutory frame-\nwork for federal-court review of state convictions tainted by\negregious federal constitutional error. The Fourth Amend-\nment, by contrast, guards against unreasonable seizures.\nAnd seizures, whether discrete or continuous, are events—\nnot outcomes. Because these bodies of law address different\nwrongs, we’re not ready to assume that “custody” in the\nformer context necessarily constitutes “seizure” in the latter.\n The defendants posit that under Manuel II Mitchell’s sei-\nzure ended when she was released on bond immediately\nafter her arrest on August 17, 2011. This suit came more than\ntwo years later, so if they’re right, Mitchell’s Fourth\nAmendment claim is untimely.\n This argument overlooks the possibility that pretrial re-\nlease might be construed as a “seizure” for Fourth Amend-\nment purposes if the conditions of that release impose\nsignificant restrictions on liberty. Several of our sister cir-\ncuits have adopted this approach. See, e.g., Evans v. Ball,\n168 F.3d 856, 861 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that a seizure\noccurred where the plaintiff had to “obtain permission\nbefore leaving the state, report regularly to pretrial services,\nsign a personal recognizance bond, and provide federal\nofficers with financial and identifying information”), abrogat-\n\fNo. 16-1907 9\n\ned on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th\nCir. 2003). Two circuits have even gone so far as to character-\nize the obligation to appear in court, standing alone, as an\nongoing seizure. Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358,\n366–67 (3d Cir. 2016); Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105, 112 (2d\nCir. 2013). This appears to be a minority position, however.\nSee Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2001)\n(“[R]un-of-the-mill conditions of pretrial release do not fit\ncomfortably within the recognized parameters of the term\n[seizure].”); see also Harrington v. City of Nashua, 610 F.3d 24,\n32 (1st Cir. 2010); Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220,\n1236 (11th Cir. 2004); Cummin v. North, 731 F. App’x 465, 473\n(6th Cir. 2018). In any event, there is out-of-circuit support\nfor the proposition that the concept of “seizure” under the\nFourth Amendment extends beyond physical detention.\n We haven’t given a Fourth Amendment “seizure” quite\nsuch a broad construction. See Bielanski v. County of Kane,\n550 F.3d 632, 642 (7th Cir. 2008) (characterizing a summons,\ntravel restriction, and interview requirement as “insufficient\nrestraints on freedom of movement to constitute a seizure”).\nAnd until the Supreme Court spoke in Manuel I, two aspects\nof our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence made the prospect\nof a “nondetention seizure” quite unlikely in this circuit.\nFirst, we rejected the concept of a continuous seizure. See\nWelton v. Anderson, 770 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2014) (collect-\ning cases). Second, we characterized Fourth Amendment\nclaims as only viable “up to the point of arraignment.” Id.\nThe latter proposition was plainly abrogated in Manuel I. But\nthe effect of Manuel I on the Fourth Amendment status of\npretrial release conditions is less certain. The panel in Manuel\nII had no occasion to address the question because Elijah\n\f10 No. 16-1907\n\nManuel was held in jail until the charges against him were\ndropped.\n We have misgivings about construing a simple obligation\nto appear in court—a uniform condition of any pretrial\nrelease—as a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes.\nConverting every traffic ticket into a nascent Fourth\nAmendment claim strikes us as an aggressive reading of the\nconstitutional text. And the canonical test for seizures re-\nmains whether a state official has “terminate[d] or re-\nstrain[ed]” an individual’s “freedom of movement” such\nthat “a reasonable person would have believed that he was\nnot free to leave.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254–55\n(2007) (citations omitted). Whether pretrial-release condi-\ntions satisfy that standard—and if so, which ones—will have\nto be resolved in this circuit in the wake of Manuel I and II.\n On this record, however, we are unable to decide the\nmatter. The parties haven’t briefed the legal question of the\nscope of a Fourth Amendment “seizure” in this context. And\neven if we decided to reach the merits, we lack sufficient\ninformation about Mitchell’s conditions of release to deter-\nmine if she remained “seized” while on pretrial release. In\nher supplemental filing, Mitchell simply pointed to the bond\nconditions imposed by Illinois law. See 725 ILL. COMP.\nSTAT. 5/110-10(a)(1)–(3) (2006) (requiring a person released\non bond to attend a court hearing and seek permission\nbefore leaving the state). She also noted that a judge may\nimpose additional release conditions. But we don’t know\nwhether the judge did so in her case.\n For now, all we can say is that in light of Manuel I,\nMitchell’s Fourth Amendment claim was wrongly dismissed\nbased on our now-abrogated circuit caselaw. But the timeli-\n\fNo. 16-1907 11\n\nness of the claim remains an open question, and gaps in the\nbriefing and record preclude our ability to answer it. We\ntherefore reverse and remand for further proceedings con-\nsistent with this opinion.\n Mitchell’s remaining arguments require little comment.\nShe raises procedural objections to the judge’s handling of\nher motion for an extension of time to seek leave to file a\nsecond amended complaint. With the exception of the\nFourth Amendment claim, we find no abuse of discretion.1\n For the foregoing reasons and only on the Fourth\nAmendment claim, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all\nother respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.\n\n\n\n\n1 Mitchell’s counsel identified two other claims as potential candidates\nfor inclusion in an amended complaint: (1) a claim for conspiracy to\nviolate Mitchell’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C.\n§ 1985(3); and (2) an additional § 1983 claim for “abuse of process” in\nviolation of the First Amendment. Mitchell has not seriously pressed\nthese claims on appeal.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Sharon Mitchell v. City of Elgin, Illinois\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 16-1907\\nSHARON MITCHELL,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n v.\\n\\nCITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court\\n for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 14 C 3457 — John Robert Blakey, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED JULY 6, 2017 — DECIDED JANUARY 2, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.*\\n SYKES, Circuit Judge. Sharon Mitchell enrolled in an online\\ncriminal-justice course offered by the Elgin Community\\nCollege. Her participation in the class did not go smoothly.\\nThe instructor—an officer of the Elgin Police Department—\\n\\n*CircuitJudge Richard A. Posner participated in the initial stages of this\\nappeal but retired from the court on September 2, 2017. This case was\\nresolved by a quorum of the panel under 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).\\n\\f2 No. 16-1907\\n\\neventually advised her that she was failing the course. Soon\\nafter, the Elgin Police Department received anonymous\\nthreats and a harassing email targeting the officer. A second\\nofficer swore out a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\\nelectronic communication harassment. She was arrested,\\nimmediately bonded out, and two years later was acquitted\\nafter a brief bench trial. Mitchell then sued the City of Elgin\\nand several of its officers seeking damages for wrongful\\nprosecution under various federal and state legal theories.\\n A district judge dismissed the case, concluding that the\\nfederal claims were either untimely or not cognizable and\\nrelinquishing supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law\\nclaims. Mitchell appealed. We heard argument in July 2017\\nbut held the case to await further developments in the wake\\nof the Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel v. City of Joliet\\n(“Manuel I”), 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017), which overturned the\\ncircuit caselaw that defeated Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\\nclaim below. Manuel I clarified that pretrial detention with-\\nout probable cause is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 920. But the Court\\ndid not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the Court\\nleft that issue open for this court to decide on remand. Id. at\\n922. In September a panel of this court answered that linger-\\ning question, holding that a Fourth Amendment claim for\\nunlawful pretrial detention accrues when the detention\\nends. Manuel v. City of Joliet (“Manuel II”), 903 F.3d 667, 670\\n(7th Cir. 2018).\\n We asked the parties to file position statements address-\\ning whether Mitchell’s claim is timely under Manuel II. They\\nhave done so. Based on the current state of the record and\\nbriefing, however, we find ourselves unable to decide the\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 3\\n\\ntimeliness question. The parties have not adequately ad-\\ndressed whether and under what circumstances a person\\nwho is arrested but released on bond remains “seized” for\\nFourth Amendment purposes. Moreover, we do not know\\nwhat conditions of release, if any, were imposed on Mitchell\\nwhen she bonded out after her arrest. The most we can say\\nat this juncture is that Mitchell might have a viable Fourth\\nAmendment claim under Manuel I and II. We therefore\\nreverse the judgment on that claim alone and remand to the\\ndistrict court for further proceedings consistent with this\\nopinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.\\n I. Background\\n We take the following factual account from Mitchell’s\\namended complaint. In the fall of 2010, Mitchell enrolled in\\nan online criminal-justice course at Elgin Community Col-\\nlege taught by Elgin Police Officer Ana Lalley. Officer Lalley\\nrequired her students to post responses to discussion topics\\nin an online forum. One topic related to students’ attitudes\\ntoward law enforcement. Mitchell’s posts on this topic were\\nso upsetting to Officer Lalley that she removed them, barred\\nMitchell from posting in the forum, and informed her that\\nshe may have violated school policies regarding student\\nbehavior. The friction between the two continued the follow-\\ning semester, and at some point Lalley informed Mitchell\\nthat she was failing the course.\\n In May 2011 the Police Department received two anony-\\nmous threats against Officer Lalley. First, Officer Todd\\nRamljak, another Elgin police officer who also taught at the\\ncollege, found a document containing threats against Lalley\\nin his school mailbox. Officer Ramljak filed a report about\\nthe incident. Two weeks later Officer Kevin Senne filed a\\n\\f4 No. 16-1907\\n\\nsupplement to Ramljak’s report stating that someone had\\nsent a harassing email to Lalley’s college email account.\\nLalley identified Mitchell as the only possible source of the\\nthreats and the harassing email. Sergeant Danner (first name\\nunknown) approved and signed these reports. In August\\n2011 Senne filed a criminal complaint accusing Mitchell of\\nelectronic communication harassment. A warrant for her\\narrest followed, and on August 17, 2011, Mitchell was arrest-\\ned and transferred to the custody of the Kane County\\nSheriff’s Department. She posted a $250 bond and was\\nreleased that same day. The amended complaint is silent\\nabout the conditions of her release.\\n The case dragged on for two years. Mitchell was offered\\nseveral plea deals but declined them all. On August 22, 2013,\\nshe was acquitted after a one-day bench trial.\\n On May 23, 2014, Mitchell filed suit pro se against the\\nCity of Elgin and several police officers seeking damages\\nunder § 1983 for violation of her rights under the First\\nAmendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Equal Protec-\\ntion and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend-\\nment. She also asserted various claims under state law. The\\ndistrict judge dismissed the federal claims and most of the\\nstate claims but allowed Mitchell to go forward on a state-\\nlaw malicious-prosecution claim against Officer Senne and\\nSergeant Danner and an indemnification claim against the\\nCity. The judge recruited pro bono counsel to assist Mitchell\\non these remaining claims.\\n The defendants moved to alter the judgment, urging the\\njudge to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-\\nlaw claims since no federal claim remained. Through newly\\nrecruited counsel, Mitchell moved for an extension of time to\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 5\\n\\nrespond to the motion and to seek leave to file a second\\namended complaint. The judge ordered counsel to identify\\nthe claims he proposed to add in an amended complaint.\\n Mitchell’s counsel responded as directed. As relevant\\nhere, counsel explained that he sought leave to replead the\\n§ 1983 claim for “malicious prosecution,” framing it as a\\nviolation of the Fourth Amendment or the Due Process\\nClause. The judge declined to allow the proposed amend-\\nment, relying on longstanding circuit precedent holding that\\nthe Fourth Amendment has no role to play after the initia-\\ntion of formal legal process (e.g., an arrest warrant or a\\nprobable-cause hearing) and that the existence of adequate\\nremedies under Illinois law foreclosed a federal “malicious\\nprosecution” claim under the Due Process Clause. Newsome\\nv. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 2001). The judge then\\nreconsidered his earlier decision to retain supplemental\\njurisdiction over the state-law claims that had survived\\ndismissal on the pleadings. He reversed course, relinquished\\nsupplemental jurisdiction, and entered final judgment for\\nthe defendants. Mitchell appealed.\\n II. Analysis\\n The Supreme Court’s decision in Manuel I arrived just as\\nthe briefing of this appeal was wrapping up, substantially\\naltering the legal framework of Mitchell’s case. Manuel I\\nabrogated our circuit precedent foreclosing Fourth Amend-\\nment claims for unlawful pretrial detention after the initia-\\ntion of formal legal process. The Court held that “pretrial\\ndetention can violate the Fourth Amendment not only when\\nit precedes, but also when it follows, the start of legal pro-\\ncess in a criminal case.” Manuel I, 137 S. Ct. at 918.\\n\\f6 No. 16-1907\\n\\n Discarding the “malicious prosecution” analogy, the\\nCourt grounded its analysis in the basic Fourth Amendment\\nprinciple that law enforcement must have probable cause to\\ndetain a person on suspicion of a crime:\\n The Fourth Amendment prohibits government\\n officials from detaining a person in the absence\\n of probable cause. That can happen when the\\n police hold someone without any reason before\\n the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But\\n it can also occur when legal process itself goes\\n wrong—when, for example, a judge’s proba-\\n ble-cause determination is predicated solely on\\n a police officer’s false statements. Then, too, a\\n person is confined without constitutionally ad-\\n equate justification. Legal process has gone\\n forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the\\n Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause require-\\n ment. And for that reason, it cannot extinguish\\n the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim—or\\n somehow … convert that claim into one\\n founded on the Due Process Clause.\\nId. at 918–19 (citations omitted). So it’s now clear that “the\\nFourth Amendment governs a claim for unlawful pretrial\\ndetention even beyond the start of legal process.” Id. at 920.\\n Manuel I recasts the legal framework for part of Mitchell’s\\ncase. To the extent that her claim is one for unlawful deten-\\ntion without probable cause, it may survive beyond the\\npleading stage—provided, however, that she sued on time.\\nManuel I did not decide when the claim accrues. Instead, the\\nCourt returned Elijah Manuel’s case to this court to decide\\nthat question. Id. at 921–22. On remand the Manuel panel\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 7\\n\\nreheard the case and recently held that a claim for unlawful\\npretrial detention accrues when the detention ceases.\\nManuel II, 903 F.3d at 670.\\n In light of these developments, we asked the parties to\\naddress the timeliness of Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment\\nclaim under Manuel II. A two-year limitations period, bor-\\nrowed from state law, governs § 1983 claims in Illinois,\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388–89 (2007), but the parties\\ndisagree about when that two-year clock started to run.\\n Mitchell contends that her Fourth Amendment claim ac-\\ncrued on August 22, 2013, when the state judge entered a\\nverdict of acquittal in her criminal case. She filed suit on\\nMay 23, 2014, less than two years later, so if she is correct on\\nthe accrual question, her claim is timely.\\n At first blush Mitchell’s position is hard to square with\\nManuel II, which as we’ve noted held that a Fourth Amend-\\nment claim for unlawful pretrial detention accrues when the\\ndetention ends, not when the prosecution ends. Mitchell was\\nnot detained beyond her initial arrest; she bonded out the\\nsame day and suffered no further pretrial detention. To\\novercome this impediment, Mitchell argues that despite her\\npretrial release, she remained “in custody” until she was\\nexonerated at trial. For support she draws on the law of\\nhabeas corpus, which considers a person who is released on\\nbail to be “in custody” for purposes of testing the legality of\\nthe custody via the writ. See Burris v. Ryan, 397 F.2d 553, 555\\n(7th Cir. 1968) (“[O]ne under arrest, but at large on bail, is\\nentitled to a writ the same as if the arrest was accompanied\\nby actual imprisonment.”) (quoting Mackenzie v. Barrett, 141\\nF. 964, 966 (7th Cir. 1905))).\\n\\f8 No. 16-1907\\n\\n We’re skeptical about the habeas analogy. The long and\\ncomplex history of habeas corpus in England reveals that the\\nwrit could issue even when the petitioner found himself in\\n“something less than close physical confinement.” Jones v.\\nCunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 238 (1963). We hesitate to apply\\nthe lessons of that historical record beyond its own context.\\nMoreover, there are important differences between modern\\nhabeas corpus and the protections of the Fourth Amend-\\nment. Habeas corpus has expanded into a statutory frame-\\nwork for federal-court review of state convictions tainted by\\negregious federal constitutional error. The Fourth Amend-\\nment, by contrast, guards against unreasonable seizures.\\nAnd seizures, whether discrete or continuous, are events—\\nnot outcomes. Because these bodies of law address different\\nwrongs, we’re not ready to assume that “custody” in the\\nformer context necessarily constitutes “seizure” in the latter.\\n The defendants posit that under Manuel II Mitchell’s sei-\\nzure ended when she was released on bond immediately\\nafter her arrest on August 17, 2011. This suit came more than\\ntwo years later, so if they’re right, Mitchell’s Fourth\\nAmendment claim is untimely.\\n This argument overlooks the possibility that pretrial re-\\nlease might be construed as a “seizure” for Fourth Amend-\\nment purposes if the conditions of that release impose\\nsignificant restrictions on liberty. Several of our sister cir-\\ncuits have adopted this approach. See, e.g., Evans v. Ball,\\n168 F.3d 856, 861 (5th Cir. 1999) (explaining that a seizure\\noccurred where the plaintiff had to “obtain permission\\nbefore leaving the state, report regularly to pretrial services,\\nsign a personal recognizance bond, and provide federal\\nofficers with financial and identifying information”), abrogat-\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 9\\n\\ned on other grounds by Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th\\nCir. 2003). Two circuits have even gone so far as to character-\\nize the obligation to appear in court, standing alone, as an\\nongoing seizure. Black v. Montgomery County, 835 F.3d 358,\\n366–67 (3d Cir. 2016); Swartz v. Insogna, 704 F.3d 105, 112 (2d\\nCir. 2013). This appears to be a minority position, however.\\nSee Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2001)\\n(“[R]un-of-the-mill conditions of pretrial release do not fit\\ncomfortably within the recognized parameters of the term\\n[seizure].”); see also Harrington v. City of Nashua, 610 F.3d 24,\\n32 (1st Cir. 2010); Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220,\\n1236 (11th Cir. 2004); Cummin v. North, 731 F. App’x 465, 473\\n(6th Cir. 2018). In any event, there is out-of-circuit support\\nfor the proposition that the concept of “seizure” under the\\nFourth Amendment extends beyond physical detention.\\n We haven’t given a Fourth Amendment “seizure” quite\\nsuch a broad construction. See Bielanski v. County of Kane,\\n550 F.3d 632, 642 (7th Cir. 2008) (characterizing a summons,\\ntravel restriction, and interview requirement as “insufficient\\nrestraints on freedom of movement to constitute a seizure”).\\nAnd until the Supreme Court spoke in Manuel I, two aspects\\nof our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence made the prospect\\nof a “nondetention seizure” quite unlikely in this circuit.\\nFirst, we rejected the concept of a continuous seizure. See\\nWelton v. Anderson, 770 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2014) (collect-\\ning cases). Second, we characterized Fourth Amendment\\nclaims as only viable “up to the point of arraignment.” Id.\\nThe latter proposition was plainly abrogated in Manuel I. But\\nthe effect of Manuel I on the Fourth Amendment status of\\npretrial release conditions is less certain. The panel in Manuel\\nII had no occasion to address the question because Elijah\\n\\f10 No. 16-1907\\n\\nManuel was held in jail until the charges against him were\\ndropped.\\n We have misgivings about construing a simple obligation\\nto appear in court—a uniform condition of any pretrial\\nrelease—as a “seizure” for Fourth Amendment purposes.\\nConverting every traffic ticket into a nascent Fourth\\nAmendment claim strikes us as an aggressive reading of the\\nconstitutional text. And the canonical test for seizures re-\\nmains whether a state official has “terminate[d] or re-\\nstrain[ed]” an individual’s “freedom of movement” such\\nthat “a reasonable person would have believed that he was\\nnot free to leave.” Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254–55\\n(2007) (citations omitted). Whether pretrial-release condi-\\ntions satisfy that standard—and if so, which ones—will have\\nto be resolved in this circuit in the wake of Manuel I and II.\\n On this record, however, we are unable to decide the\\nmatter. The parties haven’t briefed the legal question of the\\nscope of a Fourth Amendment “seizure” in this context. And\\neven if we decided to reach the merits, we lack sufficient\\ninformation about Mitchell’s conditions of release to deter-\\nmine if she remained “seized” while on pretrial release. In\\nher supplemental filing, Mitchell simply pointed to the bond\\nconditions imposed by Illinois law. See 725 ILL. COMP.\\nSTAT. 5/110-10(a)(1)–(3) (2006) (requiring a person released\\non bond to attend a court hearing and seek permission\\nbefore leaving the state). She also noted that a judge may\\nimpose additional release conditions. But we don’t know\\nwhether the judge did so in her case.\\n For now, all we can say is that in light of Manuel I,\\nMitchell’s Fourth Amendment claim was wrongly dismissed\\nbased on our now-abrogated circuit caselaw. But the timeli-\\n\\fNo. 16-1907 11\\n\\nness of the claim remains an open question, and gaps in the\\nbriefing and record preclude our ability to answer it. We\\ntherefore reverse and remand for further proceedings con-\\nsistent with this opinion.\\n Mitchell’s remaining arguments require little comment.\\nShe raises procedural objections to the judge’s handling of\\nher motion for an extension of time to seek leave to file a\\nsecond amended complaint. With the exception of the\\nFourth Amendment claim, we find no abuse of discretion.1\\n For the foregoing reasons and only on the Fourth\\nAmendment claim, we REVERSE the judgment and REMAND\\nfor further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all\\nother respects, the judgment is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n\\n\\n\\n1 Mitchell’s counsel identified two other claims as potential candidates\\nfor inclusion in an amended complaint: (1) a claim for conspiracy to\\nviolate Mitchell’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C.\\n§ 1985(3); and (2) an additional § 1983 claim for “abuse of process” in\\nviolation of the First Amendment. Mitchell has not seriously pressed\\nthese claims on appeal.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":176,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443814,"string":"8,443,814"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Mandy L. HAGEN"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Hagen"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-02"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 18-1579"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Barrett, Rovner, Sykes\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415240/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"SYKES"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443814/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Mandy L. HAGEN\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Mandy L. HAGEN\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-02\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":177,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578667,"string":"4,578,667"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. William Corrigan"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-03"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3642"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17‐3642\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\\n\\f2 No. 17‐3642\\n\\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\\nstock. \\n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 3\\n\\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\\naccount.\\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\\n\\f4 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\\ninsurance costs for employees.\\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\\nimmigration attorney.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 5\\n\\n B. Indictment and Trial\\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\\nobjection.\\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\\nusage of the funds.\\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\\n\\f6 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\\ninvestments—$110,000.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\\nintent.\\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\\nthat: \\n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\\n it affected the outcome of the district court\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 7\\n\\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \\nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\\n\\f8 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\\n cient to further a scheme.”\\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 9\\n\\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous must fail.\\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\\nto a victim.”).\\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\\n Conviction\\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 11\\n\\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\\n\\f12 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\\ndid another.\\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\\n639 (2008)).\\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 13\\n\\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\\nand what those funds would be used for.\\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\\n Solicited Funds is Proper\\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\\npersuaded by either argument.\\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\\namount is proper.\\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\\n\\f14 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355920/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578667/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. William Corrigan\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-03\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17‐3642\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\n Defendant‐Appellant.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \n\n\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\n\f2 No. 17‐3642\n\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\nstock. \n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 3\n\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\naccount.\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\n\f4 No. 17‐3642\n\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\ninsurance costs for employees.\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\nimmigration attorney.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 5\n\n B. Indictment and Trial\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\nobjection.\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\nusage of the funds.\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\n\f6 No. 17‐3642\n\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\ninvestments—$110,000.\n II. ANALYSIS\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\nintent.\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\nthat: \n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\n it affected the outcome of the district court\n\fNo. 17‐3642 7\n\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\n\f8 No. 17‐3642\n\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\n cient to further a scheme.”\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\n\fNo. 17‐3642 9\n\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\nmultiplicitous must fail.\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\n\f10 No. 17‐3642\n\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\nto a victim.”).\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\n Conviction\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 11\n\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\n\f12 No. 17‐3642\n\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\ndid another.\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\n639 (2008)).\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\n\fNo. 17‐3642 13\n\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\nand what those funds would be used for.\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\n Solicited Funds is Proper\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\npersuaded by either argument.\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\namount is proper.\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\n\f14 No. 17‐3642\n\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\ndistrict court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. William Corrigan\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-03\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17‐3642\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\\n\\f2 No. 17‐3642\\n\\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\\nstock. \\n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 3\\n\\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\\naccount.\\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\\n\\f4 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\\ninsurance costs for employees.\\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\\nimmigration attorney.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 5\\n\\n B. Indictment and Trial\\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\\nobjection.\\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\\nusage of the funds.\\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\\n\\f6 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\\ninvestments—$110,000.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\\nintent.\\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\\nthat: \\n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\\n it affected the outcome of the district court\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 7\\n\\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \\nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\\n\\f8 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\\n cient to further a scheme.”\\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 9\\n\\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous must fail.\\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\\nto a victim.”).\\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\\n Conviction\\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 11\\n\\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\\n\\f12 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\\ndid another.\\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\\n639 (2008)).\\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 13\\n\\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\\nand what those funds would be used for.\\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\\n Solicited Funds is Proper\\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\\npersuaded by either argument.\\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\\namount is proper.\\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\\n\\f14 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":178,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578702,"string":"4,578,702"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. William Corrigan"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-03"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3642"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17‐3642\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\\n\\f2 No. 17‐3642\\n\\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\\nstock. \\n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 3\\n\\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\\naccount.\\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\\n\\f4 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\\ninsurance costs for employees.\\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\\nimmigration attorney.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 5\\n\\n B. Indictment and Trial\\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\\nobjection.\\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\\nusage of the funds.\\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\\n\\f6 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\\ninvestments—$110,000.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\\nintent.\\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\\nthat: \\n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\\n it affected the outcome of the district court\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 7\\n\\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \\nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\\n\\f8 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\\n cient to further a scheme.”\\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 9\\n\\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous must fail.\\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\\nto a victim.”).\\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\\n Conviction\\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 11\\n\\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\\n\\f12 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\\ndid another.\\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\\n639 (2008)).\\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 13\\n\\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\\nand what those funds would be used for.\\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\\n Solicited Funds is Proper\\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\\npersuaded by either argument.\\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\\namount is proper.\\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\\n\\f14 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4355955/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578702/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. William Corrigan\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-03\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17‐3642\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\n Defendant‐Appellant.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \n\n\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\n\f2 No. 17‐3642\n\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\nstock. \n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 3\n\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\naccount.\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\n\f4 No. 17‐3642\n\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\ninsurance costs for employees.\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\nimmigration attorney.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 5\n\n B. Indictment and Trial\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\nobjection.\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\nusage of the funds.\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\n\f6 No. 17‐3642\n\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\ninvestments—$110,000.\n II. ANALYSIS\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\nintent.\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\nthat: \n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\n it affected the outcome of the district court\n\fNo. 17‐3642 7\n\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\n\f8 No. 17‐3642\n\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\n cient to further a scheme.”\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\n\fNo. 17‐3642 9\n\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\nmultiplicitous must fail.\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\n\f10 No. 17‐3642\n\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\nto a victim.”).\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\n Conviction\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 11\n\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\n\f12 No. 17‐3642\n\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\ndid another.\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\n639 (2008)).\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\n\fNo. 17‐3642 13\n\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\nand what those funds would be used for.\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\n Solicited Funds is Proper\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\npersuaded by either argument.\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\namount is proper.\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\n\f14 No. 17‐3642\n\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\ndistrict court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. William Corrigan\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-03\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17‐3642\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\\n\\f2 No. 17‐3642\\n\\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\\nstock. \\n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 3\\n\\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\\naccount.\\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\\n\\f4 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\\ninsurance costs for employees.\\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\\nimmigration attorney.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 5\\n\\n B. Indictment and Trial\\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\\nobjection.\\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\\nusage of the funds.\\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\\n\\f6 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\\ninvestments—$110,000.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\\nintent.\\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\\nthat: \\n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\\n it affected the outcome of the district court\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 7\\n\\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \\nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\\n\\f8 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\\n cient to further a scheme.”\\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 9\\n\\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous must fail.\\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\\nto a victim.”).\\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\\n Conviction\\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 11\\n\\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\\n\\f12 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\\ndid another.\\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\\n639 (2008)).\\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 13\\n\\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\\nand what those funds would be used for.\\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\\n Solicited Funds is Proper\\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\\npersuaded by either argument.\\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\\namount is proper.\\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\\n\\f14 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":179,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4578768,"string":"4,578,768"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. William Corrigan"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-03"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3642"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17‐3642\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\\n\\f2 No. 17‐3642\\n\\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\\nstock. \\n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 3\\n\\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\\naccount.\\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\\n\\f4 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\\ninsurance costs for employees.\\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\\nimmigration attorney.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 5\\n\\n B. Indictment and Trial\\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\\nobjection.\\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\\nusage of the funds.\\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\\n\\f6 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\\ninvestments—$110,000.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\\nintent.\\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\\nthat: \\n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\\n it affected the outcome of the district court\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 7\\n\\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \\nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\\n\\f8 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\\n cient to further a scheme.”\\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 9\\n\\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous must fail.\\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\\nto a victim.”).\\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\\n Conviction\\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 11\\n\\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\\n\\f12 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\\ndid another.\\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\\n639 (2008)).\\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 13\\n\\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\\nand what those funds would be used for.\\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\\n Solicited Funds is Proper\\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\\npersuaded by either argument.\\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\\namount is proper.\\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\\n\\f14 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356021/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"MANION\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578768/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. William Corrigan\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-03\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17‐3642\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\n Defendant‐Appellant.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \n\n\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\n\f2 No. 17‐3642\n\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\n I. BACKGROUND\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\nstock. \n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 3\n\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\naccount.\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\n\f4 No. 17‐3642\n\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\ninsurance costs for employees.\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\nimmigration attorney.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 5\n\n B. Indictment and Trial\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\nobjection.\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\nusage of the funds.\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\n\f6 No. 17‐3642\n\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\ninvestments—$110,000.\n II. ANALYSIS\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\nintent.\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\nthat: \n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\n it affected the outcome of the district court\n\fNo. 17‐3642 7\n\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\n\f8 No. 17‐3642\n\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\n cient to further a scheme.”\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\n\fNo. 17‐3642 9\n\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\nmultiplicitous must fail.\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\n\f10 No. 17‐3642\n\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\nto a victim.”).\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\n Conviction\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\n\fNo. 17‐3642 11\n\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\n\f12 No. 17‐3642\n\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\ndid another.\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\n639 (2008)).\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\n\fNo. 17‐3642 13\n\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\nand what those funds would be used for.\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\n Solicited Funds is Proper\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\npersuaded by either argument.\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\namount is proper.\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\n\f14 No. 17‐3642\n\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\n III. CONCLUSION\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\ndistrict court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. William Corrigan\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-03\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17‐3642\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff‐Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM D. CORRIGAN,\\n Defendant‐Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 13 CR 915 — Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge. \\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 3, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Following a bench trial, defendant\\nWilliam D. Corrigan (“Corrigan”) was found guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Corrigan\\nappeals his conviction, arguing that the indictment failed to\\nproperly set out a scheme for wire fraud, and the evidence at\\ntrial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. Corrigan also\\n\\f2 No. 17‐3642\\n\\ncontends that the district court erred when it ordered restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of the investments. We disagree, and for\\nthe following reasons, we affirm.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Corrigan served as the President and Chief Executive\\nOfficer of Embedded Control Systems (“ECS”), a company that\\ndeveloped a process for replacing copper wiring in airplanes\\nwith fiber optics. Beginning in 2007, ECS began soliciting\\ncapital from various investment groups. Among the investors\\nwere Jason Neilitz who purchased $125,000 worth of ECS\\nstock, and Rawah Partners which purchased $350,000 worth of\\nstock. \\n By June 2008, Corrigan had negotiated a prospective sale of\\nECS to a third party. However, due to the worldwide financial\\ndownturn the sale fell through. Shortly thereafter, through a\\nBoard resolution, ECS authorized Corrigan to manage ECS in\\nwhatever capacity he saw fit. At the same time, Corrigan was\\nnegotiating a sale to another third party when ECS began to\\nsuffer from cash flow problems.\\n ECS had difficulty paying its expenses and its officers’\\ncompensation. It closed its bank account with Chase Bank\\nbecause it was frequently overdrawn, and opened a new\\naccount with LaSalle Bank. This account excluded the Vice\\nPresident of Business Development, A.J. Yarmine, from its\\nsignatories. Through 2008, ECS employees received health\\ninsurance from the company but ECS fell behind on the pay‐\\nment for the insurance policy in 2008, making the last payment\\nto United Healthcare in November 2008. United Healthcare\\ncancelled the policy in January 2009, due to non‐payment.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 3\\n\\n By March 2009, Corrigan had begun soliciting Jason Neilitz\\nand Rawah Partners for additional investments announcing\\nthat ECS was close to closing a sale but needed additional\\nfunds to cover ECS’s healthcare insurance premiums. On\\nMarch 22, 2009, and again on April 22, 2009, Corrigan emailed\\nJason Neilitz stating that the company was close to being\\ndropped by its health insurance provider and that such a result\\nwould be “catastrophic” to its employees and the pending sale.\\nBased on Corrigan’s representations, Neilitz agreed to pur‐\\nchase an additional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s\\ninstructions Neilitz wired $50,000 to the specified account\\nwhich, unbeknownst to Neilitz, was Corrigan’s personal\\naccount.\\n At the same time that Corrigan was soliciting additional\\ncapital from Neilitz, he was also communicating with Kevin\\nDuncan, a representative from Rawah Partners, to secure an\\nadditional investment. After several conversations, in which\\nCorrigan represented that ECS needed an additional capital\\ninfusion to cover its health insurance premiums, Duncan\\nagreed to invest. In March 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $50,000 worth of ECS stock. Per Corrigan’s instruc‐\\ntions, Rawah Partners wired $50,000 to the specified account,\\nwhich unbeknownst to Rawah Partners, was Corrigan’s\\npersonal account. In April 2009, Rawah Partners purchased an\\nadditional $10,000 worth of ECS stock.\\n After Corrigan received the funds at the end of March 2009,\\nhe began to spend the money on myriad expenses, unrelated\\nto ECS’s legitimate expenses. For example, Corrigan: wired\\nmoney to his girlfriend and her translator; wired money to\\nFlight Test Labs, an associate’s company which did not do any\\n\\f4 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nwork for ECS; retained an immigration attorney; took vaca‐\\ntions; subscribed to dating websites; and covered moving\\nexpenses. Corrigan also withdrew $30,000 in cash.\\n Ultimately, Corrigan was terminated from ECS on July 2,\\n2011, after ECS’s Chief Financial Officer discovered Corrigan\\nhad received investor money in his personal account and made\\nno record of the payments. Shortly thereafter, Corrigan\\ncontacted Neilitz and Rawah Partners attempting to buy back\\nthe fraudulently sold stock. When he was questioned about\\nwhat had been done with their investments he reaffirmed his\\noriginal lie, that the funds were used by ECS to pay health\\ninsurance costs for employees.\\n A. Defendant’s Romantic Relationship\\n In March 2009, at about the advent of Corrigan’s scheme, he\\nbegan courting a Ukrainian woman, Natalia Vasilenko\\n(“Natalia”). Natalia lived in Ukraine and Corrigan spoke with\\nher through a translator, which Corrigan paid for. During their\\ncourtship Corrigan spoke about his attempts to raise money for\\na trip to visit her in Ukraine and that it appeared he would be\\nable to get funds from ECS’s investors.\\n Immediately following the receipt of funds from Neilitz on\\nApril 24, 2009, Corrigan booked a flight to Brussels, Belgium,\\nwith a return flight and hotel accommodations in Kiev,\\nUkraine. Also, Corrigan communicated to Natalia that he was\\nspeaking with an immigration attorney about bringing her to\\nthe United States, and arranged for the transfer of funds to an\\nimmigration attorney.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 5\\n\\n B. Indictment and Trial\\n On November 20, 2013, Corrigan was indicted on four\\ncounts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The\\nindictment alleged that Corrigan orchestrated a scheme to\\ndefraud ECS’s investors by providing them false statements\\nand material misinformation. In December 2013, the govern‐\\nment filed an unopposed motion to correct typographical\\nerrors in Counts II, III, and IV of the indictment and correctly\\nidentify the victim in Count I. The motion was granted without\\nobjection.\\n On December 15, 2015, the case proceeded to a bench trial.\\nAt trial the government proved that Corrigan solicited funds\\nfrom Neilitz and Rawah Partners based on false statements\\nabout the status of the company and the need for the funds,\\nand that once he secured the funds, he used them for non‐\\nbusiness related expenses and continued to provide the\\ninvestors with false and misleading information about the\\nusage of the funds.\\n The district court concluded that Corrigan “engaged in a\\nscheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners by making false\\nstatements and material misrepresentations and by concealing\\nmaterial facts. [Corrigan’s] scheme was to obtain additional\\nmoney from Neilitz and Rawah Partners by falsely represent‐\\ning that the money was needed to pay for and would be used\\nto pay for health insurance premiums for ECS employees.”\\nUnited States v. Corrigan, No. 1:13‐cr‐915, 2016 WL 4945013, at\\n*13 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2016).\\n Following trial, the district court denied Corrigan’s post‐\\ntrial motion for acquittal based on the insufficiency of the\\n\\f6 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nevidence. Corrigan was sentenced to a below Guidelines\\nsentence of 144 days (time served) and ordered to pay restitu‐\\ntion in the full amount of Neilitz’s and Rawah Partners’\\ninvestments—$110,000.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n A. The Indictment Properly Set Out a Scheme to Defraud\\n Corrigan’s first argument, that the indictment failed to\\nallege a scheme to defraud, is without merit. In support of this\\nargument Corrigan suggests that the indictment was improp‐\\nerly amended, multiplicitous, and failed to allege fraudulent\\nintent.\\n Challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment must be\\nraised in a motion to dismiss prior to trial, Federal Rule of\\nCriminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B), else they are waived, absent\\ngood cause. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3); see United States v. Nixon,\\n901 F.3d 918, 920–21 (7th Cir. 2018). If a defendant fails to\\ntimely contest a constructive amendment, we review for plain\\nerror. United States v. Cusimano, 148 F.3d 824, 828 (7th Cir.\\n1998); see also Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)\\n(“A plain error that affects substantial rights may be consid‐\\nered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”).\\nUnder the plain error standard a defendant must demonstrate\\nthat: \\n “(1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or\\n obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dis‐\\n pute; (3) the error affected the appellant’s sub‐\\n stantial rights, which in the ordinary case means\\n it affected the outcome of the district court\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 7\\n\\n proceedings; and (4) the error seriously\\n affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputa‐\\n tion of judicial proceedings.” \\nUnited States v. Anderson, 881 F.3d 568, 572 (7th Cir. 2018)\\n(quoting United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010)).\\n Here, Corrigan argues that the indictment was improperly\\namended because the motion to amend was solely to correct a\\ntypographical error and the amended indictment instead\\nchanged the victim in Count I. He argues this is a significant\\nalteration in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an issue raised\\nfor the first time after trial. The district court denied the motion\\nand concluded that the government did not constructively\\namend the indictment because the Grand Jury transcript,\\nregarding Count I, clearly relates to the fraud perpetrated\\nagainst Neilitz as did the evidence presented at trial. The\\ndistrict court also reiterated that the amendment to the\\nindictment corrected a misnomer—correctly identifying the\\nvictim in Count I. We agree.\\n Because this challenge was levied for the first time follow‐\\ning the trial, we evaluate it under the plain error standard, but\\nCorrigan makes no argument in furtherance of any of the four\\noperative elements. “The purpose of the rule against construc‐\\ntive amendments is to give the defendant reasonable notice so\\nthat she can prepare a defense[.]” United States v. Penaloza, 648\\nF.3d 539, 546 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, he has not, and cannot argue\\nthat he was unaware of the charges that were brought against\\nhim. The grand jury transcript clearly refers to the fraud\\nagainst Neilitz in Count I and Corrigan was aware of the\\nproper victim during the pre‐trial proceedings, undercutting\\n\\f8 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nany suggestion that a substantive right was affected by the\\nscrivener’s error in the original indictment. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any error occurred, let alone one that affected\\nhis substantive rights, we agree with the district court’s\\ndetermination that no constructive amendment occurred.\\n Next, Corrigan suggests that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous because they stem from Rawah Partners’ $50,000\\ninvestment and wire fraud requires an additional risk of loss\\nfor subsequent claims. He is mistaken.\\n “A multiplicitous indictment charges a single offense as\\nseparate counts … . To determine whether a given indictment\\ncontains multiplicitous counts, we look to the applicable\\ncriminal statute to see what the allowable ‘unit’ of prosecution\\nis—the minimum amount of activity for which criminal\\nliability attaches.” United States v. Ajayi, 808 F.3d 1113, 1123\\n(7th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\n To prove wire fraud the government must show\\n “[defendant’s] participation in a scheme to\\n defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\n wires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.\\n Wire communications that lull a victim into a\\n false sense of security after the victim’s money\\n had already been obtained, or that assist the\\n defendant in avoiding detection may be suffi‐\\n cient to further a scheme.”\\nUnited States v. McGowan, 590 F.3d 446, 457 (7th Cir. 2009)\\n(emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted).\\nAs the district court correctly pointed out, Count II was based\\non Corrigan’s March 22, 2009, email to Rawah Partners,\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 9\\n\\nsoliciting $50,000 to, allegedly, cover health insurance costs;\\nCount III was based on a November 7, 2011, email, assuring\\nRawah partners that the funds went to ECS, not Corrigan\\npersonally; and Count IV was predicated on a November 9,\\n2011, email, assuring Rawah Partners that its investment\\ncovered health insurance costs in 2009. The Count II email\\nsolicited the funds based on false statements and material\\nmisrepresentations about the need for and prospective use of\\nthe funds. The Counts III and IV emails lulled Rawah Partners\\ninto a false sense of security that the funds went to ECS and\\nwere used to cover health insurance costs. Because Corrigan\\ncannot show that any of the acts that abet Count II through IV\\nare duplicative, his argument that Counts II through IV are\\nmultiplicitous must fail.\\n Next, Corrigan argues that the indictment failed to allege\\nintent to defraud, stating that “any misunderstanding of how\\n[the invested] funds were to be spent was not material to the\\ndecision to invest.” Lead Brief and Required Short Appendix\\nfor the Defendant‐Appellant at 37, USA v. Corrigan, 17‐3642\\n(July 5, 2018). We disagree.\\n This issue is raised for the first time on appeal, accordingly,\\nwe review for plain error and liberally in favor of validity.\\nUnited States v. Harvey, 484 F.3d 453, 456 (7th Cir. 2007)\\n(“Generally speaking, ‘tardily challenged indictments should\\nbe construed liberally in favor of validity.’”) (quoting United\\nStates v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000)). “[F]raud\\ndoes not require that a defendant contemplate harm to the\\nvictim or any loss. In fact, a defendant’s honest belief that his\\nactions will ultimately result in a profit and not a loss is legally\\nirrelevant.” United States v. Fard, 775 F.3d 939, 944 (7th Cir.\\n\\f10 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see United\\nStates v. Nayak, 769 F.3d 978, 980 (7th Cir. 2014) (liability results\\nfrom the benefit to the defendant, not the harm to the victim);\\nUnited States v. Fernandez, 282 F.3d 500, 507 (7th Cir. 2002)\\n(“[G]overnment [does] not have to prove a contemplated harm\\nto a victim.”).\\n Here, the indictment properly alleges the elements of wire\\nfraud. The indictment alleged Corrigan’s “participation in a\\nscheme to defraud, his intent to defraud, and his use of the\\nwires in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme[.]” McGowan,\\n590 F.3d at 457. His argument that the indictment needs to\\nexplicitly allege an intent to defraud is based on a misunder‐\\nstanding of the law. Accordingly, this argument fails.\\n B. The Evidence at Trial Amply Supported Corrigan’s\\n Conviction\\n Corrigan next argues that the evidence presented at trial is\\ninsufficient to support a conviction for wire fraud. However,\\nample evidence was presented at trial to prove that he was\\nengaged in a scheme to defraud Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nand used interstate wire communication to do so.\\n This Court will only overturn a verdict for insufficiency of\\nthe evidence where “after viewing the evidence in the light\\nmost favorable to the government, the record is devoid of\\nevidence from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond\\na reasonable doubt.” United States v. Campbell, 770 F.3d 556, 568\\n(7th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526, 540\\n(7th Cir. 2011)). In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of\\nthe evidence, we do not “weigh the evidence or second‐guess\\nthe [fact finder’s] credibility determinations.” United States v.\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 11\\n\\nCoscia, 866 F.3d 782, 795 (7th Cir. 2017), reh’g and suggestion for\\nreh’g en banc denied (Sept. 5, 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1989,\\n(2018). Because we “[r]ecogniz[e] that ‘it is usually difficult or\\nimpossible to provide direct evidence of a defendant’s mental\\nstate,’ we allow for criminal intent to be proven through\\ncircumstantial evidence.” Id. (quoting United States v. Morris,\\n576 F.3d 661, 674 (7th Cir. 2009)).\\n At trial the government presented ample evidence to prove\\nthe three elements of wire fraud: testimony from defrauded\\ninvestors; Corrigan’s email correspondence; evidence of receipt\\nof investor funds; spending records, et cetera. All of these\\nshowed that Corrigan obtained the funds through fraudulent\\nmisrepresentations, used the funds for personal expenses, and\\nconcealed his bad acts for years.\\n At trial, Duncan and Neilitz testified that Corrigan solicited\\nthe second round of investments by representing that it was\\nnecessary to cover ECS’s health insurance costs; that if he was\\nunable to raise the required revenue before the end of March\\n2009, its health insurer would cancel its policy; and that if\\nNeilitz and Rawah Partners, respectively, were not interested\\nhe would have to solicit funds from other investors. These\\nrepresentations were false. By March 2009, United Healthcare\\nhad terminated ECS’s policy for non‐payment and there were\\nno other looming deadlines that required a cash infusion. More\\nto the point, the funds were never used for health insurance\\ncosts. Instead the funds were spent by Corrigan personally to,\\ninter alia, travel and support his girlfriend.\\n The government also presented myriad other evidence.\\nDocuments showed Corrigan misled investors as to where\\n\\f12 No. 17‐3642\\n\\nthe funds would be sent, the Stock Subscription Agreements\\nindicated that the funds would be sent to ECS, but Corrigan\\nprovided his personal account number instead. Emails showed\\nthat Corrigan repeatedly lied about how the funds had been\\nand were being used—he insisted that the money was used to\\ncover health insurance costs and other ECS expenses. In sum,\\nthere was ample evidence to support the district judge’s\\nconclusion that Corrigan had perpetrated a scheme to defraud\\ninvestors. Corrigan told investors he would do one thing but\\ndid another.\\n Corrigan argues, unsuccessfully, that these misrepresenta‐\\ntions were not material because he never misrepresented the\\nvalue of the stock purchased nor did he minimize the risks\\ninherent in the investment. But, “a false statement is material\\nif it has a natural tendency to influence or [is] capable of\\ninfluencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which\\nit was addressed.” United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155, 1160\\n(7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 16\\n(1999)). A scheme to defraud can exist “even when the scheme\\nwas unsuccessful and ‘no one relied on any misrepresenta‐\\ntion.’” Id. (quoting Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S.\\n639 (2008)).\\n Here, Corrigan explicitly told the investors that the funds\\nwere necessary to cover the impending health insurance\\npremiums and that if ECS lost its insurance coverage it would\\njeopardize the then‐pending sale. These statements were meant\\nto induce further investments from Neilitz and Rawah Partners\\nto both protect their initial investments and expedite their\\nreturn. Accordingly, we agree with the district court; the\\nevidence at trial supports the conclusion that Corrigan made\\n\\fNo. 17‐3642 13\\n\\nmaterial misrepresentations about the need for investor funds\\nand what those funds would be used for.\\n C. Restitution in the Full Amount of the Fraudulently\\n Solicited Funds is Proper\\n Corrigan’s final argument on appeal is that the district\\ncourt erred when it ordered $110,000 restitution—the total\\namount received as a result of the fraud. In support of this\\nproposition he avers that up to half of the funds invested as a\\nresult of the fraud were used for ECS purposes; and he should\\nhave been credited for the value of ECS’s patents. We are not\\npersuaded by either argument.\\n Typically, the district court’s restitution determination is\\nreviewed for abuse of discretion and we will not disturb the\\nrestitution order unless the district court relied on impermissi‐\\nble factors or abused its discretion. United States v. Havens, 424\\nF.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2005). However, because Corrigan failed\\nto appropriately raise the issue at sentencing, we review for\\nplain error. United States v. White, 883 F.3d 983, 992 (7th Cir.\\n2018). But, even under the lesser burden, the restitution\\namount is proper.\\n Restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is\\nmandatory when a defendant commits a property crime by\\nfraud. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii); United States v.\\nWilkozek, 822 F.3d 364, 369 (7th Cir. 2016). “Section\\n3664(f)(1)(A) requires courts to ‘order restitution to each victim\\nin the full amount of each victim’s losses[.]’” United States v.\\nMoose, 893 F.3d 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting 18 U.S.C.\\n§ 3663(f)(1)(A)) (emphasis added).\\n\\f14 No. 17‐3642\\n\\n Here we agree with the district court’s conclusion that\\nCorrigan is responsible for taking the money out of the hands\\nof investors. According to Neilitz’s and Duncan’s testimony,\\nneither would have invested additional funds absent Corri‐\\ngan’s representation that the funds were necessary to secure\\nhealth insurance for ECS’s employees.\\n Moreover, Corrigan effectively conceded the government’s\\nloss calculations. Neither at sentencing nor now does he\\npresent evidence to support some lesser amount of restitution.\\nInstead he argues that ECS’s patents have some intrinsic value\\nthat should be credited against the restitution figure, but that\\nis not the test. The district court had to consider “the full\\namount of each victim’s losses,” Moose, 893 F.3d at 959, and it\\nwas Corrigan’s burden to show that the government’s calcula‐\\ntion was inaccurate or unreliable and produce evidence as to\\nthe actual loss amount. United States v. Scalzo, 764 F.3d 739, 745\\n(7th Cir. 2014). Because the district court neither relied on\\nimproper evidence nor did Corrigan present contrary evi‐\\ndence, we find that the district court did not err in ordering\\nrestitution in the full amount of the fraud.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n The district court found William Corrigan guilty of four\\ncounts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. For the\\nreasons listed above, we find that the district court properly\\nfound that Corrigan was guilty of the charged offenses and\\nthat the determination of restitution in the amount of $110,000\\nis proper. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the\\ndistrict court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":180,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443827,"string":"8,443,827"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. William D. CORRIGAN"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Corrigan"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-03"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 17-3642"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Bauer, Brennan, Manion\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415253/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"MANION"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443827/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. William D. CORRIGAN\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-03\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. William D. CORRIGAN\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-03\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":181,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579025,"string":"4,579,025"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Mohsin YAFAI and Zahoor Ahmed, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mike POMPEO, Secretary of State, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Moshin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-04"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1205"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Flaum, Ripple, Barrett\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887828/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"040dissent\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887829/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}, {\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐1205 \\nMOSHIN YAFAI and ZAHOOR AHMED, \\n Plaintiffs‐Appellants, \\n v. \\n\\nMIKE POMPEO, Secretary of State, et al., \\n Defendants‐Appellees. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cv‐09728 — Sara L. Ellis, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 4, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. A consular officer twice denied the \\nvisa application of Zahoor Ahmed, a citizen of Yemen, on the \\nground that she had sought to smuggle two children into the \\nUnited States. Ahmed and her husband Moshin Yafai—a \\nUnited States citizen—filed suit challenging the officer’s \\ndecision. But the decision is facially legitimate and bona fide, \\nso the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ \\n\\n2 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nchallenge to it under the doctrine of consular \\nnonreviewability. \\n I. \\n Moshin Yafai and Zahoor Ahmed were born, raised, and \\nmarried in Yemen. Yafai became a naturalized United States \\ncitizen in 2001. After receiving his citizenship, Yafai filed I‐\\n130 petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration \\nService of the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of \\nhis wife and several of their children. The I‐130 petitions—\\nwhich, if granted, would permit them to apply for immigrant \\nvisas—were approved. Ahmed and her children \\nsubsequently applied for visas. \\n But the consular officer denied Ahmed’s visa application.1 \\nThe officer based the denial on attempted smuggling under 8 \\nU.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E), which provides that “[a]ny alien who \\nat any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, \\nabetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the \\nUnited States in violation of law is inadmissible.” The denial \\nstated: “You attempted to smuggle two children into the \\nUnited States using the identities Yaqub Mohsin Yafai and \\nKhaled Mohsin Yafai.” \\n Yafai and Ahmed told the embassy that Yaqub and Khaled \\nwere their children, both of whom had tragically drowned. \\nAlthough it is not entirely clear from either the record or the \\nplaintiffs’ brief, their position seems to have been that Ahmed \\ncould not be guilty of smuggling, because the children whom \\nshe had allegedly smuggled were deceased. In response, the \\n\\n1 The record does not reveal the name of the consular officer (or officers) \\n\\nwho worked on Ahmed’s case, so we refer to this person (or persons) \\nthroughout as “the consular officer” or “the officer.” \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 3 \\n\\nconsular officer requested additional documents about the \\nchildren so that the officer could reconsider Ahmed’s \\napplication. The officer requested (and Ahmed provided) \\nseven types of documents: (1) vaccination records; (2) \\nKhaled’s school records; (3) hospital bills; (4) hospital birth \\nrecords; (5) the police report from the drowning accident; (6) \\nKhaled’s passport; and (7) family photos. \\n After providing the documents, the plaintiffs’ attorney \\ncontacted the consular office to request an update on the \\nmatter. An embassy fraud prevention manager working on \\nAhmed’s case responded by email. The email stated: \\n We acknowledge that there has been some \\n repetition in examining the circumstances of the \\n purported deaths of two beneficiaries, but we \\n note that your clients do not testify credibly, \\n testify contradictorily, deny the existence of \\n evidence, and otherwise cast doubt on the \\n accuracy of their responses. Hence they were \\n questioned by the interviewing officer who \\n referred their cases to the Fraud Prevention Unit \\n whereupon we explored the same issues in \\n more detail with you[r] clients. Based on their \\n testimony, we concluded the evidence which \\n you attached did exist, hence we requested its \\n production in an effort to corroborate the \\n testimony of your clients, not impeach it. As of \\n this writing, a fraud investigator is reviewing \\n the evidence and we will finalize our fraud \\n report for the adjudicating officer. \\n\\n4 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nSeveral months after this email was sent, the consular officer \\nreaffirmed the prior visa denial for attempted smuggling \\nunder § 1182(a)(6)(E).2 \\n Yafai and Ahmed subsequently filed suit challenging the \\ndenial under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the \\nAdministrative Procedure Act. They argued that the consular \\nofficer acted in bad faith by ignoring evidence that Yaqub and \\nKhaled were their children and that they were deceased. The \\ndistrict court dismissed the claims under the doctrine of \\nconsular nonreviewability. \\n II. \\n Congress has delegated the power to determine who may \\nenter the country to the Executive Branch, and courts \\ngenerally have no authority to second‐guess the Executive’s \\ndecisions. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769–70 (1972). To \\nthat end, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability “bars \\njudicial review of visa decisions made by consular officials \\n\\n2 The record before us does not include additional detail on the rationale \\n\\nbehind the consular officer’s decision. It does not show, for example, \\nwhether the officer concluded that Ahmed and Yafai did not have children \\nnamed Yaqub and Khaled; whether the officer thought that Ahmed had \\ntried to smuggle children into the United States using the names of \\nchildren who were hers but who were now deceased; or whether the \\nofficer believed that Ahmed had children named Yaqub and Khaled \\nwhom she had tried to smuggle into the United States while they were still \\nalive. If Ahmed tried to smuggle her own children into the United States, \\nshe could seek a waiver of the statutory bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11) \\n(giving the Attorney General the discretion to waive the bar if “the alien \\nseeking admission … encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided \\nonly an individual who at the time of such action was the alien’s spouse, \\nparent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United \\nStates in violation of law”). She has apparently not done so. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 5 \\n\\nabroad.” Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 294 (7th Cir. \\n2017). The Supreme Court has identified a limited exception \\nto this doctrine, however, when the visa denial implicates a \\nconstitutional right of an American citizen. Mandel, 408 U.S. \\nat 769–70; see Morfin v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 710, 711 (7th Cir. \\n2017). Yet even in that circumstance, a court may not disturb \\nthe consular officer’s decision if the reason given is “facially \\nlegitimate and bona fide.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 769. \\n The plaintiffs invoke this limited exception to the doctrine \\nof consular nonreviewability on the ground that denying \\nAhmed a visa implicates one of Yafai’s constitutional rights: \\nhis right to live in America with his spouse. The status of this \\nright is uncertain. In Kerry v. Din, a plurality of the Supreme \\nCourt said that no such right exists, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) \\n(plurality opinion), and if we were to adopt the plurality’s \\nreasoning, our analysis would end here. But we have avoided \\ntaking a position on this issue in the past, see, e.g., Hazama v. \\nTillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017), and we need not do \\nso now. Even if the denial of Ahmed’s visa application \\nimplicated a constitutional right of Yafai’s, his claim fails \\nbecause the consular officer’s decision was facially legitimate \\nand bona fide. \\n For a consular officer’s decision to be facially legitimate \\nand bona fide, the consular officer must identify (1) a valid \\nstatute of inadmissibility and (2) the necessary “discrete \\nfactual predicates” under the statute. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at \\n2140–41 (Kennedy, J., concurring). When a statute “specifies \\ndiscrete factual predicates that the consular officer must find \\nto exist before denying a visa,” the citation of the statutory \\npredicates is itself sufficient. Id. at 2141. In other words, the \\nconsular officer need not disclose the underlying facts that led \\n\\n6 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nhim to conclude that the statute was satisfied. Id. (“Mandel \\ninstructs us not to ‘look behind’ the Government’s exclusion \\nof [the alien spouse] for additional factual details beyond \\nwhat its express reliance on [the relevant statutory provision] \\nencompassed.”) (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770)); see also \\nMorfin, 851 F.3d at 713–14 (explaining that citation to the \\nstatutory requirements supplies a legitimate reason for \\ndenying a visa application). \\n Here, the officer provided a facially legitimate and bona \\nfide reason for denying Ahmed’s application. He cited a valid \\nstatutory basis: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). And he provided the \\nfactual predicate for his decision: “You attempted to smuggle \\ntwo children into the United States using the identities Yaqub \\nMohsin Yafai and Khaled Mohsin Yafai.” No more was \\nrequired, and under Mandel, we cannot “look behind the \\nexercise of that discretion.” 408 U.S. at 770.3 \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n3 The dissent acknowledges that precedent requires nothing more than the \\n\\nconsular officer’s assertion of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.\", \"author\": \"Kenneth Francis Ripple\"}, {\"type\": \"dissent\", \"author\": \"See\", \"text\": \"See Dissenting Op. at 10. Yet the dissent would add another hurdle: proof \\nthat the officer adequately considered the evidence in the visa application. \\nAccording to the dissent, “we [] have the obligation to require, at the very \\nleast, that the Government assure us, by affidavit or similar evidence, that \\nit actually took into consideration the evidence presented by the applicant \\nand point to some factual support for the consular officer’s decision to \\ndiscount that evidence.” Id. at 15–16. That proposition contradicts the \\nSupreme Court’s holding in Mandel. See 408 U.S. at 770. As we discuss in \\nthe next Part, a court might be able to look behind an apparently legitimate \\nand bona fide decision when the plaintiff advances affirmative evidence \\nof bad faith. But that would be a narrow exception—precedent clearly \\nforecloses the dissent’s position that we are authorized to demand more \\nfrom the government as a matter of course. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 7 \\n\\n III. \\n Yafai and Ahmed argue for an exception to Mandel’s \\nlimited exception of consular nonreviewability. They contend \\nthat a court must engage in more searching review of a \\nfacially legitimate and bona fide decision if the plaintiffs make \\nan affirmative showing that the decision was made in bad \\nfaith. And Yafai and Ahmed claim that they have made such \\na showing: they assert that the evidence they produced was \\nstrong, and the officer did not accept it. That, they say, \\ndemonstrates that the officer acted in bad faith. \\n It is unclear how much latitude—if any—courts have to \\nlook behind a decision that is facially legitimate and bona fide \\nto determine whether it was actually made in bad faith. In \\nMandel, the Court refused to look behind a facially legitimate \\nand bona fide decision over the dissent’s vigorous objection \\nthat “[e]ven the briefest peek behind [it] … would reveal that \\nit is a sham.” 408 U.S. at 778 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Yet \\nJustice Kennedy’s concurrence in Din observes that an \\n“affirmative showing of bad faith” that is “plausibly alleged \\nwith sufficient particularity” might justify more searching \\nreview, 135 S. Ct. at 2141, and we have, at least in dicta, \\nallowed for the same possibility, see Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713–\\n14 (“Perhaps the refusal to issue Ulloa a visa could be said to \\nlack a ‘facially legitimate and bona fide reason’ … if the \\nconsular official had concluded that the indictment’s charges \\nwere false, or if Ulloa had presented strong evidence of \\ninnocence that the consular officer refused to consider.”). \\nYafai and Ahmed might be right, therefore, that evidence of \\nbehind‐the‐scenes bad faith can overcome Mandel’s rule that \\ncourts must stick to the face of the visa denial in evaluating it. \\n\\n8 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\n That exception would not benefit the plaintiffs here, \\nhowever, because they have failed to make “an affirmative \\nshowing” that the officer denied Ahmed’s visa in bad faith. \\nDin, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The plaintiffs \\ncontend that the only conclusion that an honest officer could \\ndraw from reviewing their evidence is that Ahmed qualified \\nfor a visa. But the fact that the officer did not believe Ahmed \\nand Yafai’s evidence does not mean that the officer was \\ndishonest or had an illicit motive. See Bad Faith, BLACK’S LAW \\nDICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) (defining bad faith as \\n“[d]ishonesty of belief, purpose, or motive”). The officer \\ncould have honestly concluded that Ahmed and Yafai’s \\ntestimony was not credible and that the documents they \\nprovided did not substantiate it. Cf. Bustamante v. Mukasey, \\n531 F.3d 1059, 1062–63 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that to establish \\nbad faith, a plaintiff must “allege that the consular official did \\nnot in good faith believe the information he had”). Making an \\n“affirmative showing of bad faith” requires a plaintiff to point \\nto something more than an unfavorable decision. \\n While it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to rebut \\nYafai and Ahmed’s allegation of bad faith, we note that the \\nevidence here reflects a good‐faith evaluation of Ahmed’s \\napplication. The officer asked Ahmed to submit additional \\ndocuments so that the consulate could reconsider her visa \\napplication. A request for additional documents is \\ninconsistent with the plaintiffs’ allegation that the officer \\nignored evidence in bad faith; on the contrary, the officer’s \\nwillingness to reconsider Ahmed’s application in light of \\nadditional evidence suggests a desire to get it right. And the \\nembassy officer’s email to the plaintiffs’ lawyer reveals good‐\\nfaith reasons for rejecting the plaintiffs’ response to the \\nsmuggling charge. It details concerns about the plaintiffs’ \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 9 \\n\\ncredibility and contradictory testimony—concerns that cut \\ndirectly against their argument that the officer acted \\ninsincerely in rejecting Ahmed’s visa application. \\n * * * \\n The consular officer’s decision to reject Ahmed’s visa \\napplication was facially legitimate and bona fide, and the \\nplaintiffs have made no affirmative showing that the officer \\nacted in bad faith. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed \\nthe plaintiffs’ claims, which were asserted under both the \\nAdministrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment \\nAct. See Morfin, 851 F.3d at 714 (dismissing claim under the \\nAPA because doctrine of consular nonreviewability applies); \\nMatushkina, 877 F.3d at 295 (stating that “[c]ourts have \\napplied the doctrine of consular nonreviewability even to \\nsuits where a plaintiff seeks to challenge a visa decision \\nindirectly”). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n10 No. 18‐1205\"}, {\"author\": \"RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Mohshin Yafai, a United \\nStates citizen, brought this action in the district court, alleg‐\\ning that a consular officer’s decision to deny his wife an im‐\\nmigrant visa violates his right to due process of law. He \\nsubmits that the officer, without any evidentiary support \\nand with substantial evidence to the contrary, invented a \\ntheory that his wife had attempted to smuggle two children \\ninto the United States. My colleagues interpret the judicially \\ncreated doctrine of consular non‐reviewability to dictate \\ndismissal of such a claim. I respectfully dissent because I be‐\\nlieve that their view of the doctrine sweeps more broadly \\nthan required by the Supreme Court and our own precedent, \\nand deprives Mr. Yafai of an important constitutional right. \\n A. \\n The first issue we must address is whether Mr. Yafai can \\nmaintain an action seeking redress for the denial of his \\nwife’s visa application. This step requires that we determine \\nwhether Mr. Yafai has any cognizable interest in his wife’s \\napplication. In earlier cases, following Justice Kennedy’s \\nseparate opinion in Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) \\n(Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment), we have assumed, \\nwithout deciding, that a United States citizen has a protected \\ninterest in a spouse’s visa application. See, e.g., Hazama v. \\nTillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017). My colleagues \\ncontinue to follow this path. Because I would grant relief on \\nthe merits, I cannot simply assume such a liberty interest. I \\nmust decide the issue. \\n In my view, a citizen does have a cognizable liberty in‐\\nterest in a spouse’s visa application. The Supreme Court cer‐\\ntainly implied that a citizen can have a cognizable interest in \\nan alien’s visa application in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 11 \\n\\n753, 762–65 (1972) (suggesting American professors who \\nsought Mandel’s participation in a variety of conferences \\nhad a First Amendment interest in his presence and, there‐\\nfore, his visa application). In Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2142–43 (Brey‐\\ner, J., dissenting), the four dissenting justices specifically \\nagreed that a United States citizen has an interest in an alien \\nspouse’s visa application. The three justices in the plurality, \\nhowever, took the opposite view. Id. at 2131 (Scalia, J.) (plu‐\\nrality opinion). They noted that a couple is “free to live … \\nanywhere in the world that both individuals are permitted \\nto reside” and that Congress has plenary power to regulate \\nimmigration, which it has exercised in its “long practice of \\nregulating spousal immigration.” Id. at 2135–36, 2138. \\n Justice Breyer’s perspective is far more compatible with \\nthe values of our constitutional tradition. A citizen’s right to \\nlive in this Country is protected under the Due Process \\nClause. See, e.g., Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, \\n670 (1944); Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284–85 (1922). \\nAt the same time, our Nation’s constitutional tradition val‐\\nues the institution of marriage highly, as it is “fundamental \\nto our very existence and survival.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 \\n 1\\nU.S. 1, 12 (1967). Consequently, the Supreme Court has long \\n\\n \\n1 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), illustrates the issue here. The Lov‐\\n\\nings were an interracial couple legally married in the District of Colum‐\\nbia. Id. at 2. When they moved home to Virginia, they were prosecuted \\nfor violating a state miscegenation law. Id. at 2–3. Instead of sentencing \\nthem to prison, the state judge suspended the sentence on the condition \\nthat they did not return to Virginia for twenty‐five years. Id. at 3. The \\nLovings, however, wished to return to Virginia and challenged the law. \\nId. The Court’s holding that the statute violated the Lovings’ right to \\nmarriage implies that “the option to live with one’s spouse in a different \\n (continued … ) \\n\\n12 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nrecognized the importance of family and the principle that \\nmarriage includes the right of spouses to live together and \\nraise a family. See, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, \\n2590–2601 (2015); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384–86 \\n(1978); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 500–04 \\n(1977) (plurality opinion); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. \\n479, 485–86 (1965); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). \\nIndeed, the right to conceive and to raise one’s children has \\n 2\\nbeen deemed an “essential, basic civil right[] of man.” Stan‐\\nley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) (citation and internal \\nquotation marks omitted). The interests of parents in their \\nchildren “is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty \\ninterests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 \\nU.S. 57, 65 (2000) (O’Connor, J.) (plurality opinion). \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n( … continued) \\nstate did not cure the state’s infringement on their right to marriage.” \\nBeth Caldwell, Deported by Marriage: Americans Forced to Choose Between \\nLove and Country, 82 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1, 21 (2016). Similarly, the option \\nfor a United States citizen to live abroad with his spouse does not cure \\nthe infringement on his right to marriage by an unfair denial of the \\nnoncitizen spouse’s entry into this Country. \\n2 Although the United States has signed but not ratified the U.N. Con‐\\n\\nvention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention makes evident the \\nimportance of retaining the family unit, especially considering the im‐\\nportance of a parent to her children. United Nations Convention on the \\nRights of the Child, Sept. 2, 1990, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3. Undoubtedly, the sep‐\\naration of family can affect the physical and mental well‐being of the \\nchild, both presently and in his or her future development. See Obergefell \\nv. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2600 (2015) (noting that marriage “affords the \\npermanency and stability important to children’s best interests”). \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 13 \\n\\n It is incongruous to maintain, therefore, that a United \\nStates citizen does not have any interest in a spouse’s pres‐\\nence in the Country and that the only recourse open to a citi‐\\nzen if the government denies a spouse entry is to leave the \\nUnited States. Although Congress certainly can regulate \\nspousal immigration and deny entry for good and sufficient \\nreason, an American citizen has a liberty interest in living \\nwith his or her spouse. This interest requires that any exclu‐\\nsion of a citizen’s spouse be imposed fairly and evenhanded‐\\n 3\\nly. \\n Mr. Yafai, a United States citizen, therefore has a consti‐\\ntutionally protected interest in Ms. Ahmed’s presence in the \\nUnited States. This interest is secured by ensuring that our \\nGovernment’s consular officials evaluate fairly her visa ap‐\\n\\n\\n \\n3 In the removal context, we have said that “family members of illegal \\n\\naliens have no cognizable interest in preventing an alien’s exclusion and \\ndeportation.” Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir. 2003); see also \\nDe Figueroa v. I.N.S., 501 F.2d 191, 195 (7th Cir. 1974). Other circuits have \\nmade similar determinations. See Garcia v. Boldin, 691 F.2d 1172, 1183 (5th \\nCir. 1982); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975); \\nCervantes v. I.N.S., 510 F.2d 89, 91–92 (10th Cir. 1975); Swartz v. Rogers, \\n254 F.2d 338, 339 (D.C. Cir. 1958). But see Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d \\n102, 107 (1st Cir. 1970) (acknowledging, albeit obliquely, and pre‐Mandel, \\nthe interest of an American citizen spouse in obtaining a visa upon expi‐\\nration of the original visa but holding that the Government can require a \\nparty to a marriage leave the United States). These cases, however, in‐\\nvolved deportation proceedings where the alien family member at‐\\ntempted to enter or did enter the country illegally, or committed a crime \\nnecessitating their deportation pursuant to the statute. Here, on the other \\nhand, a spouse of a United States citizen is seeking to enter the country \\nlegally. \\n\\n14 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nplication. What constitutes a fair evaluation is the question \\nto which I now turn. \\n B. \\n In delineating the protections afforded citizens who \\nsponsor an immigrant spouse’s application for entry into the \\nUnited States, we must begin, of course, with the unques‐\\ntioned principle that Congress has plenary responsibility to \\nregulate immigration into the United States. U.S. Const. art. \\nI, § 8, cl. 4. In fulfilling that responsibility, Congress has en‐\\nacted a prolix code that delegates a great deal of authority to \\nthe executive branch. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. That delega‐\\ntion sets forth the distinctions and standards that Congress \\nhas deemed appropriate in administering entry into the \\nUnited States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182. We must not forget, how‐\\never, that Congress also has given the judiciary the limited, \\nbut important, responsibility to ensure that the Executive \\nadministers the immigration process according to the stand‐\\nards enacted by Congress. The Immigration and Nationality \\nAct explicitly sets forth when a court may not review the \\ndiscretionary denial of a visa. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(a)(10)(C). The Act does not expressly preclude review \\nof visa denials under the smuggling provision in 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(a)(6)(E). Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (providing judicial review \\nfor orders of removal); Dhakal v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 532, 538 \\n(7th Cir. 2018) (noting jurisdiction to review the denial of an \\nasylum claim without a removal order because, “[a]lthough \\nthe APA is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, where \\nfederal jurisdiction is not precluded by another statute, gen‐\\neral federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. \\n§ 1331” (citations omitted)). \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 15 \\n\\n In the course of fulfilling its responsibilities, the Judiciary \\nhas fashioned a consular non‐reviewability doctrine. As a \\njudge‐made doctrine, it must be crafted and implemented in \\na manner compatible with the congressional mandate. The \\nSupreme Court’s decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. \\n753 (1972), is the starting point for understanding this doc‐\\ntrine. There, the Supreme Court held that “when the Execu‐\\ntive exercises” the delegated and plenary congressional \\npower to make policies and rules for the exclusions of aliens \\n“negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide \\nreason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that \\ndiscretion … .” Id. at 770 (emphasis added). In that case, \\nErnest Mandel, the plaintiff and a Belgian national, was in‐\\nvited to attend a variety of academic conferences in the \\nUnited States and to speak about his communist views. Id. at \\n756–57. His visa application was denied under a statutory \\nprovision that excluded from admission to the United States \\naliens who advocated for communism. Id. at 756. The Gov‐\\nernment further stated that Mandel had not received a dis‐\\ncretionary waiver because he had not followed his itinerary \\nduring a previous visit to the country. Id. at 758–59. The \\nCourt held that, because “the Attorney General [had] in‐\\nform[ed] Mandel’s counsel of the reason for refusing his cli‐\\nent a waiver,” and because “that reason was facially legiti‐\\nmate and bona fide,” further judicial review was unwarrant‐\\ned. Id. at 769. The Court noted that the “plenary congres‐\\nsional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of al‐\\niens has long been firmly established.” Id. at 769–70. There‐\\nfore, the Court reasoned that “courts will neither look be‐\\nhind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing \\nits justification against the First Amendment interests of \\nthose who seek personal communication with the appli‐\\n\\n16 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\ncant.” Id. at 770. Notably, in Mandel, there was no contention \\nthat the Government had not considered Mandel’s argu‐\\nments. Rather, his sponsors sought judicial review of the \\nmerits of the underlying decision of immigration authorities: \\nthey contended that the official had not weighed properly \\nFirst Amendment considerations in denying the waiver. \\n The Supreme Court addressed the consular \\nnon‐reviewability doctrine again in Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. \\n2128 (2015). In that case, the Government denied a spouse’s \\napplication for a visa under a statutory provision providing \\nthat an alien would be inadmissible if he participated in any \\nof eight enumerated types of terrorist activity. See 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(a)(3)(B). There was no opinion for the Court, but Jus‐\\ntice Kennedy, in his concurrence, explored Mandel’s re‐\\nquirement of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for a \\n 4\\nvisa denial. He concluded “that the Government satisfied \\nany obligation it might have had to provide Din with a fa‐\\ncially legitimate and bona fide reason for its action when it \\nprovided notice that her husband was denied admission to \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n4 Justice Kennedy was joined by Justice Alito. Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. \\n\\n2128, 2139–41 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). The plurali‐\\nty, authored by Justice Scalia and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and \\nJustice Thomas, did not reach the question of consular non‐reviewability \\nbecause, in their view, Din was not deprived of “life, liberty, or proper‐\\nty” when the government denied her husband’s visa. Id. at 2131–38 (Scal‐\\nia, J.) (plurality opinion). Justice Breyer’s dissent, joined by Justices Gins‐\\nburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, found that Din did have a protected inter‐\\nest in her husband’s visa and that there must be some factual basis for \\nthe denial of that visa. Id. at 2141–47 (Breyer, J., dissenting). \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 17 \\n\\n 5\\nthe country under § 1182(a)(3)(B).” Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 \\n(Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). In his view, citing the \\nterrorism provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), constituted suf‐\\nficient explanation of the consular officer’s reason for deny‐\\ning Din’s husband a visa. Id. at 2140–41. Justice Kennedy de‐\\ntermined that the Government did not have to point to \\nwhich of the eight enumerated types of terrorist activity in \\n§ 1182(a)(3)(B) applied or to provide facts underlying its de‐\\ntermination, in part because the statute expressly did not re‐\\nquire the Government to do so. Id. at 2141; see also 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(b)(3) (exempting individuals denied admission under \\nthe terrorism‐related provisions from the statutory notice \\nrequirement). Under these circumstances, citation to a stat‐\\nute that itself “specifies discrete factual predicates” was \\nenough to provide a facially legitimate and bona fide reason \\nfor the visa denial. Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 (Kennedy, J., con‐\\ncurring in judgment). That said, Justice Kennedy went on to \\nnote that Din’s husband worked for the Taliban government, \\nwhich “provides at least a facial connection to terrorist activ‐\\nity.” Id. Therefore, “[a]bsent an affirmative showing of bad \\nfaith on the part of the consular officer … which Din has not \\nplausibly alleged with sufficient particularity—Mandel in‐\\nstructs us not to ‘look behind’ the Government’s exclusion of \\n[Din’s husband] for additional factual details beyond what \\nits express reliance on § 1182(a)(3)(B) encompassed.” Id. \\n\\n\\n \\n5 Justice Kennedy assumed, without deciding, that Din, an American \\n\\ncitizen, had a sufficient liberty interest in the visa application of her alien \\nspouse to receive due process protection. Id. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concur‐\\nring in judgment). \\n\\n18 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\n In our own cases, we have attempted to apply the teach‐\\n 6\\nings of the Supreme Court in Mandel and Din. We have ob‐\\nserved that no opinion in Din garnered a majority, and that \\nMandel must control our decision. Morfin v. Tillerson, 851 \\nF.3d 710, 713 (7th Cir. 2017) (“[Din] left things as Mandel had \\nleft them—and the opinion in Mandel spoke for a majority of \\nthe Court, sparing us the need to determine how to identify \\nthe controlling view in Din given that the concurring opin‐\\nion is not a logical subset of the lead opinion (or the reverse). \\nMandel tells us not to go behind a facially legitimate and bo‐\\n 7\\nna fide explanation.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we \\n\\n\\n \\n6 See Hazama v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017) (considering, \\n\\nwithout citing Justice Kennedy’s Din concurrence, the possibility of bad \\nfaith and finding that “there is nothing in this record to suggest that the \\nconsular officers were proceeding in bad faith”). \\n7 In Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977), the Supreme Court held \\n\\nthat, in the case of a fragmented decision, “the holding of the Court may \\nbe viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the \\njudgments on the narrowest grounds.” Id. at 193 (quoting Gregg v. Geor‐\\ngia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15 (1976)). We have declined to apply Marks \\nwhere a concurrence that provides the fifth vote does not provide a \\n“common denominator” for the judgment. See, e.g., Schindler v. Clerk of \\nCircuit Court, 715 F.2d 341, 345 n.5 (7th Cir. 1983). Although Justice Ken‐\\nnedy may find support for a bad faith exception from the dissenters, this \\nis not a common denominator for the judgment. Further, although it is \\nplausible that the plurality would agree that the denial still stands when \\nthe consular officer cites a statute, there is no common denominator be‐\\ntween the plurality and Justice Kennedy’s concurrence. The plurality \\ndoes not reach the question of whether a facially legitimate and bona fide \\nbasis is satisfied by the assertion of a statutory ground; rather, Justice \\nScalia finds no process is due because Din does not have a protectable \\ninterest in her husband’s visa. Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, as‐\\n (continued … ) \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 19 \\n\\nmust accept the legitimacy of a “facially legitimate and bona \\nfide” reason. We cannot “look behind” the stated reason, nor \\ncan we test its validity by second‐guessing the Executive’s \\nweighing of various factors. \\n While demonstrating our careful adherence to the teach‐\\ning of Mandel, our recent cases also suggest the inherent lim‐\\nitations of the consular privilege. Properly understood, the \\nSupreme Court’s cases permit the judiciary to fulfill its con‐\\ngressionally mandated responsibilities. In each of our recent \\ncases, we simply have determined that the Government as‐\\nserted a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for exclu‐\\nsion by citing the statutory basis for the denial. In Morfin, 851 \\nF.3d at 713, the consular officer cited the statute disqualify‐\\ning for admission any alien who the consular officer has rea‐\\nson to believe is or has been a drug trafficker. Further, in \\nHazama v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017), we re‐\\nfused to go beyond the statutory ground cited and “rechar‐\\nacteriz[e]” a consular officer’s determination that the visa \\napplicant committed an act of terrorism by throwing rocks at \\nIsraeli soldiers as a thirteen‐year‐old boy. Finally, in Matu‐\\nshkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 295–96 (7th Cir. 2017), we \\nfound a consular officer’s citation to the fraud and misrepre‐\\nsentation statute to be a facially legitimate and bona fide rea‐\\nson for the visa denial. \\n In each case, however, we also went past the statutory ci‐\\ntations and took notice of the evidence supporting the stated \\nground for inadmissibility. See Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713 (not‐\\n \\n( … continued) \\nsumes, without deciding, that Din has a protectable interest, but that \\nprocess was satisfied. \\n\\n20 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\ning an indictment for drug trafficking supported the statuto‐\\nry requirement that the consular officer have “reason to be‐\\nlieve” the alien is or has been a drug trafficker); Hazama, 851 \\nF.3d at 709 (“The consular officer in Jerusalem knew several \\nthings before making his decision: first, this particular act of \\nrock‐throwing took place in one of the least settled places in \\nthe world … ; second, rocks are not benign objects … ; third, \\nGhneim did not deny that he had thrown the rocks; and \\nfourth, Ghneim had several other blots on his record.”); Ma‐\\ntushkina, 877 F.3d at 296 (“Matushkina acknowledged in the \\ninterview that she omitted information about her daughter’s \\nemployment.”). In short, we made certain that the assertion \\nby the consular officer was not made of whole cloth. As we \\nput it in Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713, we assured ourselves that \\n“the State Department was [not] imagining things.” See \\nHazama, 851 F.3d at 709 (“All we can do is to look at the face \\nof the decision, see if the officer cited a proper ground under \\nthe statute, and ensure that no other applicable constitution‐\\nal limitations are violated. Once that is done, if the undisputed \\nrecord includes facts that would support that ground, our task is \\nover.” (emphasis added)); Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713–14 (“Per‐\\nhaps the refusal to issue Ulloa a visa could be said to lack a \\n‘facially legitimate and bona fide reason’ (in Mandel’s words) \\nif the consular official had concluded that the indictment’s \\ncharges were false, or if Ulloa had presented strong evidence of \\ninnocence that the consular officer refused to consider. But neither \\nhis complaint nor his appellate brief makes such an argu‐\\nment.” (emphasis added)). \\n Notably, in each of these cases, while assuring ourselves \\nthat consular officers stayed within the bounds of their au‐\\nthority, we never attempted to review the substantive merits \\nof interpretive and discretionary decisions that they made. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 21 \\n\\nIndeed, in Hazama, 851 F.3d at 709, we accepted the consular \\nofficial’s determination that throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers \\nas a thirteen‐year‐old boy constituted terrorist acts. We have \\nmade certain that there were bona fide facts present that \\nprovided some basis for the Department’s assertion of the \\nground for exclusion. See id.; Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713; Matu‐\\nshkina, 877 F.3d at 295–96. We did not weigh the facts; we \\ndid not question the consular officer’s characterization of the \\nfacts. We simply noted, to prevent arbitrariness, that the rec‐\\nord contained some basis for the officer’s decision. In none \\nof these cases were we confronted with an allegation that the \\nconsular official had proceeded in bad faith. Nevertheless, \\nwe acknowledged that such an allegation, if plausibly made, \\nwould present a very different situation. We recognized that \\nour statutory duty would require that we not look the other \\nway. For instance, in Morfin, we acknowledged that a visa \\ndenial may lack a facially legitimate and bona fide reason if \\nthe applicant “had presented strong evidence of innocence \\nthat the consular officer refused to consider.” 851 F.3d at \\n713–14. In Hazama, 851 F.3d at 709, we acknowledged specif‐\\nically the possibility that a case might raise serious allega‐\\ntions of bad faith. \\n C. \\n Today’s case raises the concern of fundamental fairness \\nthat we previously acknowledged would fall outside the \\ncomparatively straightforward situations in Mandel, Din, and \\nour earlier cases. Here, the evidence submitted by Mr. Yafai \\nraises the distinct possibility that the consular officer, contra‐\\nry to his representations made to Mr. Yafai’s counsel, never \\nconsidered the evidence submitted. Mr. Yafai, a citizen of the \\nUnited States, wanted his family to come and live with him \\n\\n22 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nin this Country. He was successful in securing passports for \\nthose of his children who were born after he was naturalized \\nand visas for those who were born earlier. An adult daugh‐\\nter, already married, stayed in Yemen. The consular officer \\ndenied a visa for his wife, Ms. Ahmed, under 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(a)(6)(E) (“Any alien who at any time knowingly has \\nencouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other \\nalien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation \\nof the law is inadmissible.”). The denial included a single \\nlaconic statement that Ms. Ahmed violated the smuggling \\nprovision in § 1182(a)(6)(E): “You attempted to smuggle two \\nchildren into the United States using the identities Yaqub \\n 8\\nMohsin Yafai and Khaled Mohsin Yafai.” \\n According to Mr. Yafai, while the family’s applications \\nwere pending, two of the children had drowned accidental‐\\nly. When the consular officials inexplicably denied \\nMs. Ahmed’s application apparently on the ground that the \\ntwo deceased children were not her own, the family submit‐\\nted a substantial amount of evidence to overcome the accu‐\\nsation of fraud. That evidence included vaccination records \\nfor the deceased children, school records for the older de‐\\nceased child, prenatal care and ultrasound records, publica‐\\ntions concerning the drowning, a passport for the older de‐\\nceased child, and complete family photos prior to the chil‐\\n 9\\ndren’s deaths. The consular office responded with another \\ndenial, which merely cited the immigration smuggling pro‐\\n\\n\\n \\n8 R.1‐1 at 21. \\n\\n9 See R.1. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 23 \\n\\n 10\\nvision in § 1182(a)(6)(E). To this day, we have no idea what \\nthe basis was, or if there was any basis, for the Government’s \\nassertion that Ms. Ahmed attempted to smuggle two chil‐\\ndren into the United States. On this record, we cannot tell \\nwhether the adjudicating officer undertook a careful exami‐\\nnation or whether, without any examination, he simply is‐\\nsued a denial based solely on a generalized, stereotypical as‐\\nsumption of what, in his view, happens in that country. \\n This case is, therefore, precisely the unusual case that has \\nmade some of the Justices and our own court hesitate to \\nsanction an ironclad, judge‐made rule admitting of no excep‐\\ntions. Here, in a case where the Government asserts no na‐\\ntional security interest and where the important familial \\nrights of an American citizen are at stake, the Government \\nasks us to rubber stamp the consular decision on the basis of \\na conclusory assertion. Although Congress has tasked us, by \\nstatute, with the responsibility to prevent arbitrary and ca‐\\npricious government action, we look the other way despite \\nthe significant record evidence to refute the Government’s \\nassertion and no suggestion that the consular officer even \\n 11\\nconsidered it. Granted, we have no authority to assess the \\n \\n10 R.1‐1 at 22. \\n\\n11 In an email on October 16, 2014 to Ms. Ahmed and Mr. Yafai’s attor‐\\n\\nney, a Fraud Prevention Manager acknowledged the receipt of evidence \\nfrom Mr. Yafai and indicated that some review may have been under‐\\ntaken: \\n Thank you for the attachments. They will be most useful in \\n our analysis. \\n Rest assured that there is no delay in the processing of \\n this case to conclusion. We acknowledge that there has been \\n (continued … ) \\n\\n24 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nevidence, but under the statute, we do have the obligation to \\nrequire, at the very least, that the Government assure us, by \\n\\n \\n( … continued) \\n some repetition in examining the circumstances of the pur‐\\n ported deaths of the two beneficiaries, but we note that your \\n clients do not testify credibly, testify contradictorily, deny \\n the existence of evidence, and otherwise cast doubt on the \\n accuracy of their responses. Hence, they were questioned by \\n the interviewing officer who referred their cases to the Fraud \\n Prevention Unit whereupon we explored the same issues in \\n more detail with you[r] clients. Based on their testimony, we \\n concluded that the evidence which you attached did exist, hence re‐\\n quested its production in an effort to corroborate the testimony of \\n your clients, not impeach it. \\n As of this writing, a fraud investigator is reviewing the evi‐\\n dence and will finalize our fraud report for the adjudicating officer. \\n Unfortunately, Embassy Sanaa is currently on ordered de‐\\n parture and there are no IV adjudicating officers remaining \\n at post. We are operating at 70% staff reduction occasioned \\n by civil unrest. Your clients’ case will be placed in the queue for \\n an officer’s review upon their return to post. \\nR. 1‐1. at 26–28 (emphases added). This email provides no information \\non the later treatment of the evidence by the adjudicating officer. It only \\nindicates that the Embassy received the evidence that Mr. Yafai submit‐\\nted to rebut claims of smuggling and fraud. By its plain terms, a fraud \\ninvestigator would review the evidence, finalize a fraud report, and then \\nthe case would be reviewed by an adjudicating officer. There is no record \\nthat the adjudicating officer ever saw or considered the material. Fur‐\\nthermore, although this communication mentions some inconsistencies \\nin the testimony of appellants, we do not know whether and how the \\nadjudicating officer reconsidered these inconsistencies in light of the re‐\\nbutting evidence that Mr. Yafai submitted and whether those inconsist‐\\nencies were at all germane to the allegation of smuggling or to the validi‐\\nty of the evidence proffered by the family. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 25 \\n\\naffidavit or similar evidence, that it actually took into con‐\\nsideration the evidence presented by the applicant and point \\nto some factual support for the consular officer’s decision to \\ndiscount that evidence. In a case such as this one, where the \\nGovernment makes no representation that such a demon‐\\nstration would endanger national security, examination of \\nthe Government’s explanation, in camera if appropriate, \\nought to satisfy any other legitimate concerns of the Gov‐\\nernment against disclosure in a public record. \\n The Constitution gives Congress plenary authority over \\nimmigration matters and, as the Government reminds us, \\ndelegated a great deal of that authority to the Executive. The \\nfinely tuned provisions of the Immigration and Nationality \\nAct delegate a great deal of authority to the Executive in \\nimmigration matters and, properly applied, the consular \\nprivilege ensures that that delegation of authority is not di‐\\nluted by overly intrusive judicial proceedings. We cannot \\nforget, however, that Congress has given the Judiciary the \\nobligation to curb arbitrary action. It has made no exception \\nfor the action of consular officers. Congress did not, and \\nwould not, sanction consular officers’ making visa decisions \\nin a purely arbitrary way that affects the basic rights of \\nAmerican citizens. We have the responsibility to ensure that \\nsuch decisions, when born of laziness, prejudice or bureau‐\\ncratic inertia, do not stand. As long as Congress keeps in \\nplace our statutory responsibility, we show no respect for \\nthe Constitution or for Congress by taking cover behind an \\noverly expansive version of a judge‐made doctrine. \\n I respectfully dissent.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356278/\", \"author_raw\": \"RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":5,"string":"5"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579025/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Mohsin YAFAI and Zahoor Ahmed, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mike POMPEO, Secretary of State, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-04\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐1205 \nMOSHIN YAFAI and ZAHOOR AHMED, \n Plaintiffs‐Appellants, \n v. \n\nMIKE POMPEO, Secretary of State, et al., \n Defendants‐Appellees. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \n No. 1:16‐cv‐09728 — Sara L. Ellis, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 4, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. A consular officer twice denied the \nvisa application of Zahoor Ahmed, a citizen of Yemen, on the \nground that she had sought to smuggle two children into the \nUnited States. Ahmed and her husband Moshin Yafai—a \nUnited States citizen—filed suit challenging the officer’s \ndecision. But the decision is facially legitimate and bona fide, \nso the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ \n\n2 No. 18‐1205 \n\nchallenge to it under the doctrine of consular \nnonreviewability. \n I. \n Moshin Yafai and Zahoor Ahmed were born, raised, and \nmarried in Yemen. Yafai became a naturalized United States \ncitizen in 2001. After receiving his citizenship, Yafai filed I‐\n130 petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration \nService of the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of \nhis wife and several of their children. The I‐130 petitions—\nwhich, if granted, would permit them to apply for immigrant \nvisas—were approved. Ahmed and her children \nsubsequently applied for visas. \n But the consular officer denied Ahmed’s visa application.1 \nThe officer based the denial on attempted smuggling under 8 \nU.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E), which provides that “[a]ny alien who \nat any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, \nabetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the \nUnited States in violation of law is inadmissible.” The denial \nstated: “You attempted to smuggle two children into the \nUnited States using the identities Yaqub Mohsin Yafai and \nKhaled Mohsin Yafai.” \n Yafai and Ahmed told the embassy that Yaqub and Khaled \nwere their children, both of whom had tragically drowned. \nAlthough it is not entirely clear from either the record or the \nplaintiffs’ brief, their position seems to have been that Ahmed \ncould not be guilty of smuggling, because the children whom \nshe had allegedly smuggled were deceased. In response, the \n\n1 The record does not reveal the name of the consular officer (or officers) \n\nwho worked on Ahmed’s case, so we refer to this person (or persons) \nthroughout as “the consular officer” or “the officer.” \n\nNo. 18‐1205 3 \n\nconsular officer requested additional documents about the \nchildren so that the officer could reconsider Ahmed’s \napplication. The officer requested (and Ahmed provided) \nseven types of documents: (1) vaccination records; (2) \nKhaled’s school records; (3) hospital bills; (4) hospital birth \nrecords; (5) the police report from the drowning accident; (6) \nKhaled’s passport; and (7) family photos. \n After providing the documents, the plaintiffs’ attorney \ncontacted the consular office to request an update on the \nmatter. An embassy fraud prevention manager working on \nAhmed’s case responded by email. The email stated: \n We acknowledge that there has been some \n repetition in examining the circumstances of the \n purported deaths of two beneficiaries, but we \n note that your clients do not testify credibly, \n testify contradictorily, deny the existence of \n evidence, and otherwise cast doubt on the \n accuracy of their responses. Hence they were \n questioned by the interviewing officer who \n referred their cases to the Fraud Prevention Unit \n whereupon we explored the same issues in \n more detail with you[r] clients. Based on their \n testimony, we concluded the evidence which \n you attached did exist, hence we requested its \n production in an effort to corroborate the \n testimony of your clients, not impeach it. As of \n this writing, a fraud investigator is reviewing \n the evidence and we will finalize our fraud \n report for the adjudicating officer. \n\n4 No. 18‐1205 \n\nSeveral months after this email was sent, the consular officer \nreaffirmed the prior visa denial for attempted smuggling \nunder § 1182(a)(6)(E).2 \n Yafai and Ahmed subsequently filed suit challenging the \ndenial under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the \nAdministrative Procedure Act. They argued that the consular \nofficer acted in bad faith by ignoring evidence that Yaqub and \nKhaled were their children and that they were deceased. The \ndistrict court dismissed the claims under the doctrine of \nconsular nonreviewability. \n II. \n Congress has delegated the power to determine who may \nenter the country to the Executive Branch, and courts \ngenerally have no authority to second‐guess the Executive’s \ndecisions. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769–70 (1972). To \nthat end, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability “bars \njudicial review of visa decisions made by consular officials \n\n2 The record before us does not include additional detail on the rationale \n\nbehind the consular officer’s decision. It does not show, for example, \nwhether the officer concluded that Ahmed and Yafai did not have children \nnamed Yaqub and Khaled; whether the officer thought that Ahmed had \ntried to smuggle children into the United States using the names of \nchildren who were hers but who were now deceased; or whether the \nofficer believed that Ahmed had children named Yaqub and Khaled \nwhom she had tried to smuggle into the United States while they were still \nalive. If Ahmed tried to smuggle her own children into the United States, \nshe could seek a waiver of the statutory bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11) \n(giving the Attorney General the discretion to waive the bar if “the alien \nseeking admission … encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided \nonly an individual who at the time of such action was the alien’s spouse, \nparent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United \nStates in violation of law”). She has apparently not done so. \n\nNo. 18‐1205 5 \n\nabroad.” Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 294 (7th Cir. \n2017). The Supreme Court has identified a limited exception \nto this doctrine, however, when the visa denial implicates a \nconstitutional right of an American citizen. Mandel, 408 U.S. \nat 769–70; see Morfin v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 710, 711 (7th Cir. \n2017). Yet even in that circumstance, a court may not disturb \nthe consular officer’s decision if the reason given is “facially \nlegitimate and bona fide.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 769. \n The plaintiffs invoke this limited exception to the doctrine \nof consular nonreviewability on the ground that denying \nAhmed a visa implicates one of Yafai’s constitutional rights: \nhis right to live in America with his spouse. The status of this \nright is uncertain. In Kerry v. Din, a plurality of the Supreme \nCourt said that no such right exists, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) \n(plurality opinion), and if we were to adopt the plurality’s \nreasoning, our analysis would end here. But we have avoided \ntaking a position on this issue in the past, see, e.g., Hazama v. \nTillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017), and we need not do \nso now. Even if the denial of Ahmed’s visa application \nimplicated a constitutional right of Yafai’s, his claim fails \nbecause the consular officer’s decision was facially legitimate \nand bona fide. \n For a consular officer’s decision to be facially legitimate \nand bona fide, the consular officer must identify (1) a valid \nstatute of inadmissibility and (2) the necessary “discrete \nfactual predicates” under the statute. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at \n2140–41 (Kennedy, J., concurring). When a statute “specifies \ndiscrete factual predicates that the consular officer must find \nto exist before denying a visa,” the citation of the statutory \npredicates is itself sufficient. Id. at 2141. In other words, the \nconsular officer need not disclose the underlying facts that led \n\n6 No. 18‐1205 \n\nhim to conclude that the statute was satisfied. Id. (“Mandel \ninstructs us not to ‘look behind’ the Government’s exclusion \nof [the alien spouse] for additional factual details beyond \nwhat its express reliance on [the relevant statutory provision] \nencompassed.”) (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770)); see also \nMorfin, 851 F.3d at 713–14 (explaining that citation to the \nstatutory requirements supplies a legitimate reason for \ndenying a visa application). \n Here, the officer provided a facially legitimate and bona \nfide reason for denying Ahmed’s application. He cited a valid \nstatutory basis: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). And he provided the \nfactual predicate for his decision: “You attempted to smuggle \ntwo children into the United States using the identities Yaqub \nMohsin Yafai and Khaled Mohsin Yafai.” No more was \nrequired, and under Mandel, we cannot “look behind the \nexercise of that discretion.” 408 U.S. at 770.3 \n\n\n\n\n3 The dissent acknowledges that precedent requires nothing more than the \n\nconsular officer’s assertion of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Mohsin YAFAI and Zahoor Ahmed, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mike POMPEO, Secretary of State, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-04\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐1205 \\nMOSHIN YAFAI and ZAHOOR AHMED, \\n Plaintiffs‐Appellants, \\n v. \\n\\nMIKE POMPEO, Secretary of State, et al., \\n Defendants‐Appellees. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cv‐09728 — Sara L. Ellis, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 4, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. A consular officer twice denied the \\nvisa application of Zahoor Ahmed, a citizen of Yemen, on the \\nground that she had sought to smuggle two children into the \\nUnited States. Ahmed and her husband Moshin Yafai—a \\nUnited States citizen—filed suit challenging the officer’s \\ndecision. But the decision is facially legitimate and bona fide, \\nso the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ \\n\\n2 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nchallenge to it under the doctrine of consular \\nnonreviewability. \\n I. \\n Moshin Yafai and Zahoor Ahmed were born, raised, and \\nmarried in Yemen. Yafai became a naturalized United States \\ncitizen in 2001. After receiving his citizenship, Yafai filed I‐\\n130 petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration \\nService of the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of \\nhis wife and several of their children. The I‐130 petitions—\\nwhich, if granted, would permit them to apply for immigrant \\nvisas—were approved. Ahmed and her children \\nsubsequently applied for visas. \\n But the consular officer denied Ahmed’s visa application.1 \\nThe officer based the denial on attempted smuggling under 8 \\nU.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E), which provides that “[a]ny alien who \\nat any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, \\nabetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the \\nUnited States in violation of law is inadmissible.” The denial \\nstated: “You attempted to smuggle two children into the \\nUnited States using the identities Yaqub Mohsin Yafai and \\nKhaled Mohsin Yafai.” \\n Yafai and Ahmed told the embassy that Yaqub and Khaled \\nwere their children, both of whom had tragically drowned. \\nAlthough it is not entirely clear from either the record or the \\nplaintiffs’ brief, their position seems to have been that Ahmed \\ncould not be guilty of smuggling, because the children whom \\nshe had allegedly smuggled were deceased. In response, the \\n\\n1 The record does not reveal the name of the consular officer (or officers) \\n\\nwho worked on Ahmed’s case, so we refer to this person (or persons) \\nthroughout as “the consular officer” or “the officer.” \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 3 \\n\\nconsular officer requested additional documents about the \\nchildren so that the officer could reconsider Ahmed’s \\napplication. The officer requested (and Ahmed provided) \\nseven types of documents: (1) vaccination records; (2) \\nKhaled’s school records; (3) hospital bills; (4) hospital birth \\nrecords; (5) the police report from the drowning accident; (6) \\nKhaled’s passport; and (7) family photos. \\n After providing the documents, the plaintiffs’ attorney \\ncontacted the consular office to request an update on the \\nmatter. An embassy fraud prevention manager working on \\nAhmed’s case responded by email. The email stated: \\n We acknowledge that there has been some \\n repetition in examining the circumstances of the \\n purported deaths of two beneficiaries, but we \\n note that your clients do not testify credibly, \\n testify contradictorily, deny the existence of \\n evidence, and otherwise cast doubt on the \\n accuracy of their responses. Hence they were \\n questioned by the interviewing officer who \\n referred their cases to the Fraud Prevention Unit \\n whereupon we explored the same issues in \\n more detail with you[r] clients. Based on their \\n testimony, we concluded the evidence which \\n you attached did exist, hence we requested its \\n production in an effort to corroborate the \\n testimony of your clients, not impeach it. As of \\n this writing, a fraud investigator is reviewing \\n the evidence and we will finalize our fraud \\n report for the adjudicating officer. \\n\\n4 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nSeveral months after this email was sent, the consular officer \\nreaffirmed the prior visa denial for attempted smuggling \\nunder § 1182(a)(6)(E).2 \\n Yafai and Ahmed subsequently filed suit challenging the \\ndenial under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the \\nAdministrative Procedure Act. They argued that the consular \\nofficer acted in bad faith by ignoring evidence that Yaqub and \\nKhaled were their children and that they were deceased. The \\ndistrict court dismissed the claims under the doctrine of \\nconsular nonreviewability. \\n II. \\n Congress has delegated the power to determine who may \\nenter the country to the Executive Branch, and courts \\ngenerally have no authority to second‐guess the Executive’s \\ndecisions. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769–70 (1972). To \\nthat end, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability “bars \\njudicial review of visa decisions made by consular officials \\n\\n2 The record before us does not include additional detail on the rationale \\n\\nbehind the consular officer’s decision. It does not show, for example, \\nwhether the officer concluded that Ahmed and Yafai did not have children \\nnamed Yaqub and Khaled; whether the officer thought that Ahmed had \\ntried to smuggle children into the United States using the names of \\nchildren who were hers but who were now deceased; or whether the \\nofficer believed that Ahmed had children named Yaqub and Khaled \\nwhom she had tried to smuggle into the United States while they were still \\nalive. If Ahmed tried to smuggle her own children into the United States, \\nshe could seek a waiver of the statutory bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11) \\n(giving the Attorney General the discretion to waive the bar if “the alien \\nseeking admission … encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided \\nonly an individual who at the time of such action was the alien’s spouse, \\nparent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United \\nStates in violation of law”). She has apparently not done so. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 5 \\n\\nabroad.” Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 294 (7th Cir. \\n2017). The Supreme Court has identified a limited exception \\nto this doctrine, however, when the visa denial implicates a \\nconstitutional right of an American citizen. Mandel, 408 U.S. \\nat 769–70; see Morfin v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 710, 711 (7th Cir. \\n2017). Yet even in that circumstance, a court may not disturb \\nthe consular officer’s decision if the reason given is “facially \\nlegitimate and bona fide.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 769. \\n The plaintiffs invoke this limited exception to the doctrine \\nof consular nonreviewability on the ground that denying \\nAhmed a visa implicates one of Yafai’s constitutional rights: \\nhis right to live in America with his spouse. The status of this \\nright is uncertain. In Kerry v. Din, a plurality of the Supreme \\nCourt said that no such right exists, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) \\n(plurality opinion), and if we were to adopt the plurality’s \\nreasoning, our analysis would end here. But we have avoided \\ntaking a position on this issue in the past, see, e.g., Hazama v. \\nTillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017), and we need not do \\nso now. Even if the denial of Ahmed’s visa application \\nimplicated a constitutional right of Yafai’s, his claim fails \\nbecause the consular officer’s decision was facially legitimate \\nand bona fide. \\n For a consular officer’s decision to be facially legitimate \\nand bona fide, the consular officer must identify (1) a valid \\nstatute of inadmissibility and (2) the necessary “discrete \\nfactual predicates” under the statute. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at \\n2140–41 (Kennedy, J., concurring). When a statute “specifies \\ndiscrete factual predicates that the consular officer must find \\nto exist before denying a visa,” the citation of the statutory \\npredicates is itself sufficient. Id. at 2141. In other words, the \\nconsular officer need not disclose the underlying facts that led \\n\\n6 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nhim to conclude that the statute was satisfied. Id. (“Mandel \\ninstructs us not to ‘look behind’ the Government’s exclusion \\nof [the alien spouse] for additional factual details beyond \\nwhat its express reliance on [the relevant statutory provision] \\nencompassed.”) (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770)); see also \\nMorfin, 851 F.3d at 713–14 (explaining that citation to the \\nstatutory requirements supplies a legitimate reason for \\ndenying a visa application). \\n Here, the officer provided a facially legitimate and bona \\nfide reason for denying Ahmed’s application. He cited a valid \\nstatutory basis: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). And he provided the \\nfactual predicate for his decision: “You attempted to smuggle \\ntwo children into the United States using the identities Yaqub \\nMohsin Yafai and Khaled Mohsin Yafai.” No more was \\nrequired, and under Mandel, we cannot “look behind the \\nexercise of that discretion.” 408 U.S. at 770.3 \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n3 The dissent acknowledges that precedent requires nothing more than the \\n\\nconsular officer’s assertion of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":182,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579043,"string":"4,579,043"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Moshin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-04"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1205"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐1205 \\nMOSHIN YAFAI and ZAHOOR AHMED, \\n Plaintiffs‐Appellants, \\n v. \\n\\nMIKE POMPEO, Secretary of State, et al., \\n Defendants‐Appellees. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cv‐09728 — Sara L. Ellis, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 4, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. A consular officer twice denied the \\nvisa application of Zahoor Ahmed, a citizen of Yemen, on the \\nground that she had sought to smuggle two children into the \\nUnited States. Ahmed and her husband Moshin Yafai—a \\nUnited States citizen—filed suit challenging the officer’s \\ndecision. But the decision is facially legitimate and bona fide, \\nso the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ \\n\\n2 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nchallenge to it under the doctrine of consular \\nnonreviewability. \\n I. \\n Moshin Yafai and Zahoor Ahmed were born, raised, and \\nmarried in Yemen. Yafai became a naturalized United States \\ncitizen in 2001. After receiving his citizenship, Yafai filed I‐\\n130 petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration \\nService of the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of \\nhis wife and several of their children. The I‐130 petitions—\\nwhich, if granted, would permit them to apply for immigrant \\nvisas—were approved. Ahmed and her children \\nsubsequently applied for visas. \\n But the consular officer denied Ahmed’s visa application.1 \\nThe officer based the denial on attempted smuggling under 8 \\nU.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E), which provides that “[a]ny alien who \\nat any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, \\nabetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the \\nUnited States in violation of law is inadmissible.” The denial \\nstated: “You attempted to smuggle two children into the \\nUnited States using the identities Yaqub Mohsin Yafai and \\nKhaled Mohsin Yafai.” \\n Yafai and Ahmed told the embassy that Yaqub and Khaled \\nwere their children, both of whom had tragically drowned. \\nAlthough it is not entirely clear from either the record or the \\nplaintiffs’ brief, their position seems to have been that Ahmed \\ncould not be guilty of smuggling, because the children whom \\nshe had allegedly smuggled were deceased. In response, the \\n\\n1 The record does not reveal the name of the consular officer (or officers) \\n\\nwho worked on Ahmed’s case, so we refer to this person (or persons) \\nthroughout as “the consular officer” or “the officer.” \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 3 \\n\\nconsular officer requested additional documents about the \\nchildren so that the officer could reconsider Ahmed’s \\napplication. The officer requested (and Ahmed provided) \\nseven types of documents: (1) vaccination records; (2) \\nKhaled’s school records; (3) hospital bills; (4) hospital birth \\nrecords; (5) the police report from the drowning accident; (6) \\nKhaled’s passport; and (7) family photos. \\n After providing the documents, the plaintiffs’ attorney \\ncontacted the consular office to request an update on the \\nmatter. An embassy fraud prevention manager working on \\nAhmed’s case responded by email. The email stated: \\n We acknowledge that there has been some \\n repetition in examining the circumstances of the \\n purported deaths of two beneficiaries, but we \\n note that your clients do not testify credibly, \\n testify contradictorily, deny the existence of \\n evidence, and otherwise cast doubt on the \\n accuracy of their responses. Hence they were \\n questioned by the interviewing officer who \\n referred their cases to the Fraud Prevention Unit \\n whereupon we explored the same issues in \\n more detail with you[r] clients. Based on their \\n testimony, we concluded the evidence which \\n you attached did exist, hence we requested its \\n production in an effort to corroborate the \\n testimony of your clients, not impeach it. As of \\n this writing, a fraud investigator is reviewing \\n the evidence and we will finalize our fraud \\n report for the adjudicating officer. \\n\\n4 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nSeveral months after this email was sent, the consular officer \\nreaffirmed the prior visa denial for attempted smuggling \\nunder § 1182(a)(6)(E).2 \\n Yafai and Ahmed subsequently filed suit challenging the \\ndenial under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the \\nAdministrative Procedure Act. They argued that the consular \\nofficer acted in bad faith by ignoring evidence that Yaqub and \\nKhaled were their children and that they were deceased. The \\ndistrict court dismissed the claims under the doctrine of \\nconsular nonreviewability. \\n II. \\n Congress has delegated the power to determine who may \\nenter the country to the Executive Branch, and courts \\ngenerally have no authority to second‐guess the Executive’s \\ndecisions. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769–70 (1972). To \\nthat end, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability “bars \\njudicial review of visa decisions made by consular officials \\n\\n2 The record before us does not include additional detail on the rationale \\n\\nbehind the consular officer’s decision. It does not show, for example, \\nwhether the officer concluded that Ahmed and Yafai did not have children \\nnamed Yaqub and Khaled; whether the officer thought that Ahmed had \\ntried to smuggle children into the United States using the names of \\nchildren who were hers but who were now deceased; or whether the \\nofficer believed that Ahmed had children named Yaqub and Khaled \\nwhom she had tried to smuggle into the United States while they were still \\nalive. If Ahmed tried to smuggle her own children into the United States, \\nshe could seek a waiver of the statutory bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11) \\n(giving the Attorney General the discretion to waive the bar if “the alien \\nseeking admission … encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided \\nonly an individual who at the time of such action was the alien’s spouse, \\nparent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United \\nStates in violation of law”). She has apparently not done so. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 5 \\n\\nabroad.” Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 294 (7th Cir. \\n2017). The Supreme Court has identified a limited exception \\nto this doctrine, however, when the visa denial implicates a \\nconstitutional right of an American citizen. Mandel, 408 U.S. \\nat 769–70; see Morfin v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 710, 711 (7th Cir. \\n2017). Yet even in that circumstance, a court may not disturb \\nthe consular officer’s decision if the reason given is “facially \\nlegitimate and bona fide.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 769. \\n The plaintiffs invoke this limited exception to the doctrine \\nof consular nonreviewability on the ground that denying \\nAhmed a visa implicates one of Yafai’s constitutional rights: \\nhis right to live in America with his spouse. The status of this \\nright is uncertain. In Kerry v. Din, a plurality of the Supreme \\nCourt said that no such right exists, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) \\n(plurality opinion), and if we were to adopt the plurality’s \\nreasoning, our analysis would end here. But we have avoided \\ntaking a position on this issue in the past, see, e.g., Hazama v. \\nTillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017), and we need not do \\nso now. Even if the denial of Ahmed’s visa application \\nimplicated a constitutional right of Yafai’s, his claim fails \\nbecause the consular officer’s decision was facially legitimate \\nand bona fide. \\n For a consular officer’s decision to be facially legitimate \\nand bona fide, the consular officer must identify (1) a valid \\nstatute of inadmissibility and (2) the necessary “discrete \\nfactual predicates” under the statute. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at \\n2140–41 (Kennedy, J., concurring). When a statute “specifies \\ndiscrete factual predicates that the consular officer must find \\nto exist before denying a visa,” the citation of the statutory \\npredicates is itself sufficient. Id. at 2141. In other words, the \\nconsular officer need not disclose the underlying facts that led \\n\\n6 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nhim to conclude that the statute was satisfied. Id. (“Mandel \\ninstructs us not to ‘look behind’ the Government’s exclusion \\nof [the alien spouse] for additional factual details beyond \\nwhat its express reliance on [the relevant statutory provision] \\nencompassed.”) (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770)); see also \\nMorfin, 851 F.3d at 713–14 (explaining that citation to the \\nstatutory requirements supplies a legitimate reason for \\ndenying a visa application). \\n Here, the officer provided a facially legitimate and bona \\nfide reason for denying Ahmed’s application. He cited a valid \\nstatutory basis: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). And he provided the \\nfactual predicate for his decision: “You attempted to smuggle \\ntwo children into the United States using the identities Yaqub \\nMohsin Yafai and Khaled Mohsin Yafai.” No more was \\nrequired, and under Mandel, we cannot “look behind the \\nexercise of that discretion.” 408 U.S. at 770.3 \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n3 The dissent acknowledges that precedent requires nothing more than the \\n\\nconsular officer’s assertion of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.\", \"author\": \"Kenneth Francis Ripple\"}, {\"type\": \"dissent\", \"author\": \"See\", \"text\": \"See Dissenting Op. at 10. Yet the dissent would add another hurdle: proof \\nthat the officer adequately considered the evidence in the visa application. \\nAccording to the dissent, “we [] have the obligation to require, at the very \\nleast, that the Government assure us, by affidavit or similar evidence, that \\nit actually took into consideration the evidence presented by the applicant \\nand point to some factual support for the consular officer’s decision to \\ndiscount that evidence.” Id. at 15–16. That proposition contradicts the \\nSupreme Court’s holding in Mandel. See 408 U.S. at 770. As we discuss in \\nthe next Part, a court might be able to look behind an apparently legitimate \\nand bona fide decision when the plaintiff advances affirmative evidence \\nof bad faith. But that would be a narrow exception—precedent clearly \\nforecloses the dissent’s position that we are authorized to demand more \\nfrom the government as a matter of course. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 7 \\n\\n III. \\n Yafai and Ahmed argue for an exception to Mandel’s \\nlimited exception of consular nonreviewability. They contend \\nthat a court must engage in more searching review of a \\nfacially legitimate and bona fide decision if the plaintiffs make \\nan affirmative showing that the decision was made in bad \\nfaith. And Yafai and Ahmed claim that they have made such \\na showing: they assert that the evidence they produced was \\nstrong, and the officer did not accept it. That, they say, \\ndemonstrates that the officer acted in bad faith. \\n It is unclear how much latitude—if any—courts have to \\nlook behind a decision that is facially legitimate and bona fide \\nto determine whether it was actually made in bad faith. In \\nMandel, the Court refused to look behind a facially legitimate \\nand bona fide decision over the dissent’s vigorous objection \\nthat “[e]ven the briefest peek behind [it] … would reveal that \\nit is a sham.” 408 U.S. at 778 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Yet \\nJustice Kennedy’s concurrence in Din observes that an \\n“affirmative showing of bad faith” that is “plausibly alleged \\nwith sufficient particularity” might justify more searching \\nreview, 135 S. Ct. at 2141, and we have, at least in dicta, \\nallowed for the same possibility, see Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713–\\n14 (“Perhaps the refusal to issue Ulloa a visa could be said to \\nlack a ‘facially legitimate and bona fide reason’ … if the \\nconsular official had concluded that the indictment’s charges \\nwere false, or if Ulloa had presented strong evidence of \\ninnocence that the consular officer refused to consider.”). \\nYafai and Ahmed might be right, therefore, that evidence of \\nbehind‐the‐scenes bad faith can overcome Mandel’s rule that \\ncourts must stick to the face of the visa denial in evaluating it. \\n\\n8 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\n That exception would not benefit the plaintiffs here, \\nhowever, because they have failed to make “an affirmative \\nshowing” that the officer denied Ahmed’s visa in bad faith. \\nDin, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 (Kennedy, J., concurring). The plaintiffs \\ncontend that the only conclusion that an honest officer could \\ndraw from reviewing their evidence is that Ahmed qualified \\nfor a visa. But the fact that the officer did not believe Ahmed \\nand Yafai’s evidence does not mean that the officer was \\ndishonest or had an illicit motive. See Bad Faith, BLACK’S LAW \\nDICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) (defining bad faith as \\n“[d]ishonesty of belief, purpose, or motive”). The officer \\ncould have honestly concluded that Ahmed and Yafai’s \\ntestimony was not credible and that the documents they \\nprovided did not substantiate it. Cf. Bustamante v. Mukasey, \\n531 F.3d 1059, 1062–63 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that to establish \\nbad faith, a plaintiff must “allege that the consular official did \\nnot in good faith believe the information he had”). Making an \\n“affirmative showing of bad faith” requires a plaintiff to point \\nto something more than an unfavorable decision. \\n While it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to rebut \\nYafai and Ahmed’s allegation of bad faith, we note that the \\nevidence here reflects a good‐faith evaluation of Ahmed’s \\napplication. The officer asked Ahmed to submit additional \\ndocuments so that the consulate could reconsider her visa \\napplication. A request for additional documents is \\ninconsistent with the plaintiffs’ allegation that the officer \\nignored evidence in bad faith; on the contrary, the officer’s \\nwillingness to reconsider Ahmed’s application in light of \\nadditional evidence suggests a desire to get it right. And the \\nembassy officer’s email to the plaintiffs’ lawyer reveals good‐\\nfaith reasons for rejecting the plaintiffs’ response to the \\nsmuggling charge. It details concerns about the plaintiffs’ \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 9 \\n\\ncredibility and contradictory testimony—concerns that cut \\ndirectly against their argument that the officer acted \\ninsincerely in rejecting Ahmed’s visa application. \\n * * * \\n The consular officer’s decision to reject Ahmed’s visa \\napplication was facially legitimate and bona fide, and the \\nplaintiffs have made no affirmative showing that the officer \\nacted in bad faith. Thus, the district court correctly dismissed \\nthe plaintiffs’ claims, which were asserted under both the \\nAdministrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment \\nAct. See Morfin, 851 F.3d at 714 (dismissing claim under the \\nAPA because doctrine of consular nonreviewability applies); \\nMatushkina, 877 F.3d at 295 (stating that “[c]ourts have \\napplied the doctrine of consular nonreviewability even to \\nsuits where a plaintiff seeks to challenge a visa decision \\nindirectly”). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.\\n\\n10 No. 18‐1205\"}, {\"author\": \"RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\", \"type\": \"dissent\", \"text\": \"RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Mohshin Yafai, a United \\nStates citizen, brought this action in the district court, alleg‐\\ning that a consular officer’s decision to deny his wife an im‐\\nmigrant visa violates his right to due process of law. He \\nsubmits that the officer, without any evidentiary support \\nand with substantial evidence to the contrary, invented a \\ntheory that his wife had attempted to smuggle two children \\ninto the United States. My colleagues interpret the judicially \\ncreated doctrine of consular non‐reviewability to dictate \\ndismissal of such a claim. I respectfully dissent because I be‐\\nlieve that their view of the doctrine sweeps more broadly \\nthan required by the Supreme Court and our own precedent, \\nand deprives Mr. Yafai of an important constitutional right. \\n A. \\n The first issue we must address is whether Mr. Yafai can \\nmaintain an action seeking redress for the denial of his \\nwife’s visa application. This step requires that we determine \\nwhether Mr. Yafai has any cognizable interest in his wife’s \\napplication. In earlier cases, following Justice Kennedy’s \\nseparate opinion in Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2139 (2015) \\n(Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment), we have assumed, \\nwithout deciding, that a United States citizen has a protected \\ninterest in a spouse’s visa application. See, e.g., Hazama v. \\nTillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017). My colleagues \\ncontinue to follow this path. Because I would grant relief on \\nthe merits, I cannot simply assume such a liberty interest. I \\nmust decide the issue. \\n In my view, a citizen does have a cognizable liberty in‐\\nterest in a spouse’s visa application. The Supreme Court cer‐\\ntainly implied that a citizen can have a cognizable interest in \\nan alien’s visa application in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 11 \\n\\n753, 762–65 (1972) (suggesting American professors who \\nsought Mandel’s participation in a variety of conferences \\nhad a First Amendment interest in his presence and, there‐\\nfore, his visa application). In Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2142–43 (Brey‐\\ner, J., dissenting), the four dissenting justices specifically \\nagreed that a United States citizen has an interest in an alien \\nspouse’s visa application. The three justices in the plurality, \\nhowever, took the opposite view. Id. at 2131 (Scalia, J.) (plu‐\\nrality opinion). They noted that a couple is “free to live … \\nanywhere in the world that both individuals are permitted \\nto reside” and that Congress has plenary power to regulate \\nimmigration, which it has exercised in its “long practice of \\nregulating spousal immigration.” Id. at 2135–36, 2138. \\n Justice Breyer’s perspective is far more compatible with \\nthe values of our constitutional tradition. A citizen’s right to \\nlive in this Country is protected under the Due Process \\nClause. See, e.g., Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, \\n670 (1944); Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276, 284–85 (1922). \\nAt the same time, our Nation’s constitutional tradition val‐\\nues the institution of marriage highly, as it is “fundamental \\nto our very existence and survival.” Loving v. Virginia, 388 \\n 1\\nU.S. 1, 12 (1967). Consequently, the Supreme Court has long \\n\\n \\n1 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), illustrates the issue here. The Lov‐\\n\\nings were an interracial couple legally married in the District of Colum‐\\nbia. Id. at 2. When they moved home to Virginia, they were prosecuted \\nfor violating a state miscegenation law. Id. at 2–3. Instead of sentencing \\nthem to prison, the state judge suspended the sentence on the condition \\nthat they did not return to Virginia for twenty‐five years. Id. at 3. The \\nLovings, however, wished to return to Virginia and challenged the law. \\nId. The Court’s holding that the statute violated the Lovings’ right to \\nmarriage implies that “the option to live with one’s spouse in a different \\n (continued … ) \\n\\n12 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nrecognized the importance of family and the principle that \\nmarriage includes the right of spouses to live together and \\nraise a family. See, e.g., Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, \\n2590–2601 (2015); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384–86 \\n(1978); Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 500–04 \\n(1977) (plurality opinion); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. \\n479, 485–86 (1965); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). \\nIndeed, the right to conceive and to raise one’s children has \\n 2\\nbeen deemed an “essential, basic civil right[] of man.” Stan‐\\nley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) (citation and internal \\nquotation marks omitted). The interests of parents in their \\nchildren “is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty \\ninterests recognized by this Court.” Troxel v. Granville, 530 \\nU.S. 57, 65 (2000) (O’Connor, J.) (plurality opinion). \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n( … continued) \\nstate did not cure the state’s infringement on their right to marriage.” \\nBeth Caldwell, Deported by Marriage: Americans Forced to Choose Between \\nLove and Country, 82 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1, 21 (2016). Similarly, the option \\nfor a United States citizen to live abroad with his spouse does not cure \\nthe infringement on his right to marriage by an unfair denial of the \\nnoncitizen spouse’s entry into this Country. \\n2 Although the United States has signed but not ratified the U.N. Con‐\\n\\nvention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention makes evident the \\nimportance of retaining the family unit, especially considering the im‐\\nportance of a parent to her children. United Nations Convention on the \\nRights of the Child, Sept. 2, 1990, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3. Undoubtedly, the sep‐\\naration of family can affect the physical and mental well‐being of the \\nchild, both presently and in his or her future development. See Obergefell \\nv. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2600 (2015) (noting that marriage “affords the \\npermanency and stability important to children’s best interests”). \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 13 \\n\\n It is incongruous to maintain, therefore, that a United \\nStates citizen does not have any interest in a spouse’s pres‐\\nence in the Country and that the only recourse open to a citi‐\\nzen if the government denies a spouse entry is to leave the \\nUnited States. Although Congress certainly can regulate \\nspousal immigration and deny entry for good and sufficient \\nreason, an American citizen has a liberty interest in living \\nwith his or her spouse. This interest requires that any exclu‐\\nsion of a citizen’s spouse be imposed fairly and evenhanded‐\\n 3\\nly. \\n Mr. Yafai, a United States citizen, therefore has a consti‐\\ntutionally protected interest in Ms. Ahmed’s presence in the \\nUnited States. This interest is secured by ensuring that our \\nGovernment’s consular officials evaluate fairly her visa ap‐\\n\\n\\n \\n3 In the removal context, we have said that “family members of illegal \\n\\naliens have no cognizable interest in preventing an alien’s exclusion and \\ndeportation.” Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir. 2003); see also \\nDe Figueroa v. I.N.S., 501 F.2d 191, 195 (7th Cir. 1974). Other circuits have \\nmade similar determinations. See Garcia v. Boldin, 691 F.2d 1172, 1183 (5th \\nCir. 1982); Burrafato v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 523 F.2d 554, 555 (2d Cir. 1975); \\nCervantes v. I.N.S., 510 F.2d 89, 91–92 (10th Cir. 1975); Swartz v. Rogers, \\n254 F.2d 338, 339 (D.C. Cir. 1958). But see Silverman v. Rogers, 437 F.2d \\n102, 107 (1st Cir. 1970) (acknowledging, albeit obliquely, and pre‐Mandel, \\nthe interest of an American citizen spouse in obtaining a visa upon expi‐\\nration of the original visa but holding that the Government can require a \\nparty to a marriage leave the United States). These cases, however, in‐\\nvolved deportation proceedings where the alien family member at‐\\ntempted to enter or did enter the country illegally, or committed a crime \\nnecessitating their deportation pursuant to the statute. Here, on the other \\nhand, a spouse of a United States citizen is seeking to enter the country \\nlegally. \\n\\n14 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nplication. What constitutes a fair evaluation is the question \\nto which I now turn. \\n B. \\n In delineating the protections afforded citizens who \\nsponsor an immigrant spouse’s application for entry into the \\nUnited States, we must begin, of course, with the unques‐\\ntioned principle that Congress has plenary responsibility to \\nregulate immigration into the United States. U.S. Const. art. \\nI, § 8, cl. 4. In fulfilling that responsibility, Congress has en‐\\nacted a prolix code that delegates a great deal of authority to \\nthe executive branch. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. That delega‐\\ntion sets forth the distinctions and standards that Congress \\nhas deemed appropriate in administering entry into the \\nUnited States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182. We must not forget, how‐\\never, that Congress also has given the judiciary the limited, \\nbut important, responsibility to ensure that the Executive \\nadministers the immigration process according to the stand‐\\nards enacted by Congress. The Immigration and Nationality \\nAct explicitly sets forth when a court may not review the \\ndiscretionary denial of a visa. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(a)(10)(C). The Act does not expressly preclude review \\nof visa denials under the smuggling provision in 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(a)(6)(E). Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (providing judicial review \\nfor orders of removal); Dhakal v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 532, 538 \\n(7th Cir. 2018) (noting jurisdiction to review the denial of an \\nasylum claim without a removal order because, “[a]lthough \\nthe APA is not an independent grant of jurisdiction, where \\nfederal jurisdiction is not precluded by another statute, gen‐\\neral federal question jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. \\n§ 1331” (citations omitted)). \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 15 \\n\\n In the course of fulfilling its responsibilities, the Judiciary \\nhas fashioned a consular non‐reviewability doctrine. As a \\njudge‐made doctrine, it must be crafted and implemented in \\na manner compatible with the congressional mandate. The \\nSupreme Court’s decision in Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. \\n753 (1972), is the starting point for understanding this doc‐\\ntrine. There, the Supreme Court held that “when the Execu‐\\ntive exercises” the delegated and plenary congressional \\npower to make policies and rules for the exclusions of aliens \\n“negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide \\nreason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that \\ndiscretion … .” Id. at 770 (emphasis added). In that case, \\nErnest Mandel, the plaintiff and a Belgian national, was in‐\\nvited to attend a variety of academic conferences in the \\nUnited States and to speak about his communist views. Id. at \\n756–57. His visa application was denied under a statutory \\nprovision that excluded from admission to the United States \\naliens who advocated for communism. Id. at 756. The Gov‐\\nernment further stated that Mandel had not received a dis‐\\ncretionary waiver because he had not followed his itinerary \\nduring a previous visit to the country. Id. at 758–59. The \\nCourt held that, because “the Attorney General [had] in‐\\nform[ed] Mandel’s counsel of the reason for refusing his cli‐\\nent a waiver,” and because “that reason was facially legiti‐\\nmate and bona fide,” further judicial review was unwarrant‐\\ned. Id. at 769. The Court noted that the “plenary congres‐\\nsional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of al‐\\niens has long been firmly established.” Id. at 769–70. There‐\\nfore, the Court reasoned that “courts will neither look be‐\\nhind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing \\nits justification against the First Amendment interests of \\nthose who seek personal communication with the appli‐\\n\\n16 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\ncant.” Id. at 770. Notably, in Mandel, there was no contention \\nthat the Government had not considered Mandel’s argu‐\\nments. Rather, his sponsors sought judicial review of the \\nmerits of the underlying decision of immigration authorities: \\nthey contended that the official had not weighed properly \\nFirst Amendment considerations in denying the waiver. \\n The Supreme Court addressed the consular \\nnon‐reviewability doctrine again in Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. \\n2128 (2015). In that case, the Government denied a spouse’s \\napplication for a visa under a statutory provision providing \\nthat an alien would be inadmissible if he participated in any \\nof eight enumerated types of terrorist activity. See 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(a)(3)(B). There was no opinion for the Court, but Jus‐\\ntice Kennedy, in his concurrence, explored Mandel’s re‐\\nquirement of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for a \\n 4\\nvisa denial. He concluded “that the Government satisfied \\nany obligation it might have had to provide Din with a fa‐\\ncially legitimate and bona fide reason for its action when it \\nprovided notice that her husband was denied admission to \\n\\n\\n\\n \\n4 Justice Kennedy was joined by Justice Alito. Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. \\n\\n2128, 2139–41 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). The plurali‐\\nty, authored by Justice Scalia and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and \\nJustice Thomas, did not reach the question of consular non‐reviewability \\nbecause, in their view, Din was not deprived of “life, liberty, or proper‐\\nty” when the government denied her husband’s visa. Id. at 2131–38 (Scal‐\\nia, J.) (plurality opinion). Justice Breyer’s dissent, joined by Justices Gins‐\\nburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, found that Din did have a protected inter‐\\nest in her husband’s visa and that there must be some factual basis for \\nthe denial of that visa. Id. at 2141–47 (Breyer, J., dissenting). \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 17 \\n\\n 5\\nthe country under § 1182(a)(3)(B).” Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 \\n(Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment). In his view, citing the \\nterrorism provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B), constituted suf‐\\nficient explanation of the consular officer’s reason for deny‐\\ning Din’s husband a visa. Id. at 2140–41. Justice Kennedy de‐\\ntermined that the Government did not have to point to \\nwhich of the eight enumerated types of terrorist activity in \\n§ 1182(a)(3)(B) applied or to provide facts underlying its de‐\\ntermination, in part because the statute expressly did not re‐\\nquire the Government to do so. Id. at 2141; see also 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(b)(3) (exempting individuals denied admission under \\nthe terrorism‐related provisions from the statutory notice \\nrequirement). Under these circumstances, citation to a stat‐\\nute that itself “specifies discrete factual predicates” was \\nenough to provide a facially legitimate and bona fide reason \\nfor the visa denial. Din, 135 S. Ct. at 2141 (Kennedy, J., con‐\\ncurring in judgment). That said, Justice Kennedy went on to \\nnote that Din’s husband worked for the Taliban government, \\nwhich “provides at least a facial connection to terrorist activ‐\\nity.” Id. Therefore, “[a]bsent an affirmative showing of bad \\nfaith on the part of the consular officer … which Din has not \\nplausibly alleged with sufficient particularity—Mandel in‐\\nstructs us not to ‘look behind’ the Government’s exclusion of \\n[Din’s husband] for additional factual details beyond what \\nits express reliance on § 1182(a)(3)(B) encompassed.” Id. \\n\\n\\n \\n5 Justice Kennedy assumed, without deciding, that Din, an American \\n\\ncitizen, had a sufficient liberty interest in the visa application of her alien \\nspouse to receive due process protection. Id. at 2139 (Kennedy, J., concur‐\\nring in judgment). \\n\\n18 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\n In our own cases, we have attempted to apply the teach‐\\n 6\\nings of the Supreme Court in Mandel and Din. We have ob‐\\nserved that no opinion in Din garnered a majority, and that \\nMandel must control our decision. Morfin v. Tillerson, 851 \\nF.3d 710, 713 (7th Cir. 2017) (“[Din] left things as Mandel had \\nleft them—and the opinion in Mandel spoke for a majority of \\nthe Court, sparing us the need to determine how to identify \\nthe controlling view in Din given that the concurring opin‐\\nion is not a logical subset of the lead opinion (or the reverse). \\nMandel tells us not to go behind a facially legitimate and bo‐\\n 7\\nna fide explanation.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we \\n\\n\\n \\n6 See Hazama v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017) (considering, \\n\\nwithout citing Justice Kennedy’s Din concurrence, the possibility of bad \\nfaith and finding that “there is nothing in this record to suggest that the \\nconsular officers were proceeding in bad faith”). \\n7 In Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977), the Supreme Court held \\n\\nthat, in the case of a fragmented decision, “the holding of the Court may \\nbe viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the \\njudgments on the narrowest grounds.” Id. at 193 (quoting Gregg v. Geor‐\\ngia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n.15 (1976)). We have declined to apply Marks \\nwhere a concurrence that provides the fifth vote does not provide a \\n“common denominator” for the judgment. See, e.g., Schindler v. Clerk of \\nCircuit Court, 715 F.2d 341, 345 n.5 (7th Cir. 1983). Although Justice Ken‐\\nnedy may find support for a bad faith exception from the dissenters, this \\nis not a common denominator for the judgment. Further, although it is \\nplausible that the plurality would agree that the denial still stands when \\nthe consular officer cites a statute, there is no common denominator be‐\\ntween the plurality and Justice Kennedy’s concurrence. The plurality \\ndoes not reach the question of whether a facially legitimate and bona fide \\nbasis is satisfied by the assertion of a statutory ground; rather, Justice \\nScalia finds no process is due because Din does not have a protectable \\ninterest in her husband’s visa. Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, as‐\\n (continued … ) \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 19 \\n\\nmust accept the legitimacy of a “facially legitimate and bona \\nfide” reason. We cannot “look behind” the stated reason, nor \\ncan we test its validity by second‐guessing the Executive’s \\nweighing of various factors. \\n While demonstrating our careful adherence to the teach‐\\ning of Mandel, our recent cases also suggest the inherent lim‐\\nitations of the consular privilege. Properly understood, the \\nSupreme Court’s cases permit the judiciary to fulfill its con‐\\ngressionally mandated responsibilities. In each of our recent \\ncases, we simply have determined that the Government as‐\\nserted a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for exclu‐\\nsion by citing the statutory basis for the denial. In Morfin, 851 \\nF.3d at 713, the consular officer cited the statute disqualify‐\\ning for admission any alien who the consular officer has rea‐\\nson to believe is or has been a drug trafficker. Further, in \\nHazama v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017), we re‐\\nfused to go beyond the statutory ground cited and “rechar‐\\nacteriz[e]” a consular officer’s determination that the visa \\napplicant committed an act of terrorism by throwing rocks at \\nIsraeli soldiers as a thirteen‐year‐old boy. Finally, in Matu‐\\nshkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 295–96 (7th Cir. 2017), we \\nfound a consular officer’s citation to the fraud and misrepre‐\\nsentation statute to be a facially legitimate and bona fide rea‐\\nson for the visa denial. \\n In each case, however, we also went past the statutory ci‐\\ntations and took notice of the evidence supporting the stated \\nground for inadmissibility. See Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713 (not‐\\n \\n( … continued) \\nsumes, without deciding, that Din has a protectable interest, but that \\nprocess was satisfied. \\n\\n20 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\ning an indictment for drug trafficking supported the statuto‐\\nry requirement that the consular officer have “reason to be‐\\nlieve” the alien is or has been a drug trafficker); Hazama, 851 \\nF.3d at 709 (“The consular officer in Jerusalem knew several \\nthings before making his decision: first, this particular act of \\nrock‐throwing took place in one of the least settled places in \\nthe world … ; second, rocks are not benign objects … ; third, \\nGhneim did not deny that he had thrown the rocks; and \\nfourth, Ghneim had several other blots on his record.”); Ma‐\\ntushkina, 877 F.3d at 296 (“Matushkina acknowledged in the \\ninterview that she omitted information about her daughter’s \\nemployment.”). In short, we made certain that the assertion \\nby the consular officer was not made of whole cloth. As we \\nput it in Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713, we assured ourselves that \\n“the State Department was [not] imagining things.” See \\nHazama, 851 F.3d at 709 (“All we can do is to look at the face \\nof the decision, see if the officer cited a proper ground under \\nthe statute, and ensure that no other applicable constitution‐\\nal limitations are violated. Once that is done, if the undisputed \\nrecord includes facts that would support that ground, our task is \\nover.” (emphasis added)); Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713–14 (“Per‐\\nhaps the refusal to issue Ulloa a visa could be said to lack a \\n‘facially legitimate and bona fide reason’ (in Mandel’s words) \\nif the consular official had concluded that the indictment’s \\ncharges were false, or if Ulloa had presented strong evidence of \\ninnocence that the consular officer refused to consider. But neither \\nhis complaint nor his appellate brief makes such an argu‐\\nment.” (emphasis added)). \\n Notably, in each of these cases, while assuring ourselves \\nthat consular officers stayed within the bounds of their au‐\\nthority, we never attempted to review the substantive merits \\nof interpretive and discretionary decisions that they made. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 21 \\n\\nIndeed, in Hazama, 851 F.3d at 709, we accepted the consular \\nofficial’s determination that throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers \\nas a thirteen‐year‐old boy constituted terrorist acts. We have \\nmade certain that there were bona fide facts present that \\nprovided some basis for the Department’s assertion of the \\nground for exclusion. See id.; Morfin, 851 F.3d at 713; Matu‐\\nshkina, 877 F.3d at 295–96. We did not weigh the facts; we \\ndid not question the consular officer’s characterization of the \\nfacts. We simply noted, to prevent arbitrariness, that the rec‐\\nord contained some basis for the officer’s decision. In none \\nof these cases were we confronted with an allegation that the \\nconsular official had proceeded in bad faith. Nevertheless, \\nwe acknowledged that such an allegation, if plausibly made, \\nwould present a very different situation. We recognized that \\nour statutory duty would require that we not look the other \\nway. For instance, in Morfin, we acknowledged that a visa \\ndenial may lack a facially legitimate and bona fide reason if \\nthe applicant “had presented strong evidence of innocence \\nthat the consular officer refused to consider.” 851 F.3d at \\n713–14. In Hazama, 851 F.3d at 709, we acknowledged specif‐\\nically the possibility that a case might raise serious allega‐\\ntions of bad faith. \\n C. \\n Today’s case raises the concern of fundamental fairness \\nthat we previously acknowledged would fall outside the \\ncomparatively straightforward situations in Mandel, Din, and \\nour earlier cases. Here, the evidence submitted by Mr. Yafai \\nraises the distinct possibility that the consular officer, contra‐\\nry to his representations made to Mr. Yafai’s counsel, never \\nconsidered the evidence submitted. Mr. Yafai, a citizen of the \\nUnited States, wanted his family to come and live with him \\n\\n22 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nin this Country. He was successful in securing passports for \\nthose of his children who were born after he was naturalized \\nand visas for those who were born earlier. An adult daugh‐\\nter, already married, stayed in Yemen. The consular officer \\ndenied a visa for his wife, Ms. Ahmed, under 8 U.S.C. \\n§ 1182(a)(6)(E) (“Any alien who at any time knowingly has \\nencouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other \\nalien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation \\nof the law is inadmissible.”). The denial included a single \\nlaconic statement that Ms. Ahmed violated the smuggling \\nprovision in § 1182(a)(6)(E): “You attempted to smuggle two \\nchildren into the United States using the identities Yaqub \\n 8\\nMohsin Yafai and Khaled Mohsin Yafai.” \\n According to Mr. Yafai, while the family’s applications \\nwere pending, two of the children had drowned accidental‐\\nly. When the consular officials inexplicably denied \\nMs. Ahmed’s application apparently on the ground that the \\ntwo deceased children were not her own, the family submit‐\\nted a substantial amount of evidence to overcome the accu‐\\nsation of fraud. That evidence included vaccination records \\nfor the deceased children, school records for the older de‐\\nceased child, prenatal care and ultrasound records, publica‐\\ntions concerning the drowning, a passport for the older de‐\\nceased child, and complete family photos prior to the chil‐\\n 9\\ndren’s deaths. The consular office responded with another \\ndenial, which merely cited the immigration smuggling pro‐\\n\\n\\n \\n8 R.1‐1 at 21. \\n\\n9 See R.1. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 23 \\n\\n 10\\nvision in § 1182(a)(6)(E). To this day, we have no idea what \\nthe basis was, or if there was any basis, for the Government’s \\nassertion that Ms. Ahmed attempted to smuggle two chil‐\\ndren into the United States. On this record, we cannot tell \\nwhether the adjudicating officer undertook a careful exami‐\\nnation or whether, without any examination, he simply is‐\\nsued a denial based solely on a generalized, stereotypical as‐\\nsumption of what, in his view, happens in that country. \\n This case is, therefore, precisely the unusual case that has \\nmade some of the Justices and our own court hesitate to \\nsanction an ironclad, judge‐made rule admitting of no excep‐\\ntions. Here, in a case where the Government asserts no na‐\\ntional security interest and where the important familial \\nrights of an American citizen are at stake, the Government \\nasks us to rubber stamp the consular decision on the basis of \\na conclusory assertion. Although Congress has tasked us, by \\nstatute, with the responsibility to prevent arbitrary and ca‐\\npricious government action, we look the other way despite \\nthe significant record evidence to refute the Government’s \\nassertion and no suggestion that the consular officer even \\n 11\\nconsidered it. Granted, we have no authority to assess the \\n \\n10 R.1‐1 at 22. \\n\\n11 In an email on October 16, 2014 to Ms. Ahmed and Mr. Yafai’s attor‐\\n\\nney, a Fraud Prevention Manager acknowledged the receipt of evidence \\nfrom Mr. Yafai and indicated that some review may have been under‐\\ntaken: \\n Thank you for the attachments. They will be most useful in \\n our analysis. \\n Rest assured that there is no delay in the processing of \\n this case to conclusion. We acknowledge that there has been \\n (continued … ) \\n\\n24 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nevidence, but under the statute, we do have the obligation to \\nrequire, at the very least, that the Government assure us, by \\n\\n \\n( … continued) \\n some repetition in examining the circumstances of the pur‐\\n ported deaths of the two beneficiaries, but we note that your \\n clients do not testify credibly, testify contradictorily, deny \\n the existence of evidence, and otherwise cast doubt on the \\n accuracy of their responses. Hence, they were questioned by \\n the interviewing officer who referred their cases to the Fraud \\n Prevention Unit whereupon we explored the same issues in \\n more detail with you[r] clients. Based on their testimony, we \\n concluded that the evidence which you attached did exist, hence re‐\\n quested its production in an effort to corroborate the testimony of \\n your clients, not impeach it. \\n As of this writing, a fraud investigator is reviewing the evi‐\\n dence and will finalize our fraud report for the adjudicating officer. \\n Unfortunately, Embassy Sanaa is currently on ordered de‐\\n parture and there are no IV adjudicating officers remaining \\n at post. We are operating at 70% staff reduction occasioned \\n by civil unrest. Your clients’ case will be placed in the queue for \\n an officer’s review upon their return to post. \\nR. 1‐1. at 26–28 (emphases added). This email provides no information \\non the later treatment of the evidence by the adjudicating officer. It only \\nindicates that the Embassy received the evidence that Mr. Yafai submit‐\\nted to rebut claims of smuggling and fraud. By its plain terms, a fraud \\ninvestigator would review the evidence, finalize a fraud report, and then \\nthe case would be reviewed by an adjudicating officer. There is no record \\nthat the adjudicating officer ever saw or considered the material. Fur‐\\nthermore, although this communication mentions some inconsistencies \\nin the testimony of appellants, we do not know whether and how the \\nadjudicating officer reconsidered these inconsistencies in light of the re‐\\nbutting evidence that Mr. Yafai submitted and whether those inconsist‐\\nencies were at all germane to the allegation of smuggling or to the validi‐\\nty of the evidence proffered by the family. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 25 \\n\\naffidavit or similar evidence, that it actually took into con‐\\nsideration the evidence presented by the applicant and point \\nto some factual support for the consular officer’s decision to \\ndiscount that evidence. In a case such as this one, where the \\nGovernment makes no representation that such a demon‐\\nstration would endanger national security, examination of \\nthe Government’s explanation, in camera if appropriate, \\nought to satisfy any other legitimate concerns of the Gov‐\\nernment against disclosure in a public record. \\n The Constitution gives Congress plenary authority over \\nimmigration matters and, as the Government reminds us, \\ndelegated a great deal of that authority to the Executive. The \\nfinely tuned provisions of the Immigration and Nationality \\nAct delegate a great deal of authority to the Executive in \\nimmigration matters and, properly applied, the consular \\nprivilege ensures that that delegation of authority is not di‐\\nluted by overly intrusive judicial proceedings. We cannot \\nforget, however, that Congress has given the Judiciary the \\nobligation to curb arbitrary action. It has made no exception \\nfor the action of consular officers. Congress did not, and \\nwould not, sanction consular officers’ making visa decisions \\nin a purely arbitrary way that affects the basic rights of \\nAmerican citizens. We have the responsibility to ensure that \\nsuch decisions, when born of laziness, prejudice or bureau‐\\ncratic inertia, do not stand. As long as Congress keeps in \\nplace our statutory responsibility, we show no respect for \\nthe Constitution or for Congress by taking cover behind an \\noverly expansive version of a judge‐made doctrine. \\n I respectfully dissent.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356296/\", \"author_raw\": \"RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, dissenting\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"RIPPLE"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"RIPPLE\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":3,"string":"3"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579043/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Moshin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-04\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐1205 \nMOSHIN YAFAI and ZAHOOR AHMED, \n Plaintiffs‐Appellants, \n v. \n\nMIKE POMPEO, Secretary of State, et al., \n Defendants‐Appellees. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \n No. 1:16‐cv‐09728 — Sara L. Ellis, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 4, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. A consular officer twice denied the \nvisa application of Zahoor Ahmed, a citizen of Yemen, on the \nground that she had sought to smuggle two children into the \nUnited States. Ahmed and her husband Moshin Yafai—a \nUnited States citizen—filed suit challenging the officer’s \ndecision. But the decision is facially legitimate and bona fide, \nso the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ \n\n2 No. 18‐1205 \n\nchallenge to it under the doctrine of consular \nnonreviewability. \n I. \n Moshin Yafai and Zahoor Ahmed were born, raised, and \nmarried in Yemen. Yafai became a naturalized United States \ncitizen in 2001. After receiving his citizenship, Yafai filed I‐\n130 petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration \nService of the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of \nhis wife and several of their children. The I‐130 petitions—\nwhich, if granted, would permit them to apply for immigrant \nvisas—were approved. Ahmed and her children \nsubsequently applied for visas. \n But the consular officer denied Ahmed’s visa application.1 \nThe officer based the denial on attempted smuggling under 8 \nU.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E), which provides that “[a]ny alien who \nat any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, \nabetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the \nUnited States in violation of law is inadmissible.” The denial \nstated: “You attempted to smuggle two children into the \nUnited States using the identities Yaqub Mohsin Yafai and \nKhaled Mohsin Yafai.” \n Yafai and Ahmed told the embassy that Yaqub and Khaled \nwere their children, both of whom had tragically drowned. \nAlthough it is not entirely clear from either the record or the \nplaintiffs’ brief, their position seems to have been that Ahmed \ncould not be guilty of smuggling, because the children whom \nshe had allegedly smuggled were deceased. In response, the \n\n1 The record does not reveal the name of the consular officer (or officers) \n\nwho worked on Ahmed’s case, so we refer to this person (or persons) \nthroughout as “the consular officer” or “the officer.” \n\nNo. 18‐1205 3 \n\nconsular officer requested additional documents about the \nchildren so that the officer could reconsider Ahmed’s \napplication. The officer requested (and Ahmed provided) \nseven types of documents: (1) vaccination records; (2) \nKhaled’s school records; (3) hospital bills; (4) hospital birth \nrecords; (5) the police report from the drowning accident; (6) \nKhaled’s passport; and (7) family photos. \n After providing the documents, the plaintiffs’ attorney \ncontacted the consular office to request an update on the \nmatter. An embassy fraud prevention manager working on \nAhmed’s case responded by email. The email stated: \n We acknowledge that there has been some \n repetition in examining the circumstances of the \n purported deaths of two beneficiaries, but we \n note that your clients do not testify credibly, \n testify contradictorily, deny the existence of \n evidence, and otherwise cast doubt on the \n accuracy of their responses. Hence they were \n questioned by the interviewing officer who \n referred their cases to the Fraud Prevention Unit \n whereupon we explored the same issues in \n more detail with you[r] clients. Based on their \n testimony, we concluded the evidence which \n you attached did exist, hence we requested its \n production in an effort to corroborate the \n testimony of your clients, not impeach it. As of \n this writing, a fraud investigator is reviewing \n the evidence and we will finalize our fraud \n report for the adjudicating officer. \n\n4 No. 18‐1205 \n\nSeveral months after this email was sent, the consular officer \nreaffirmed the prior visa denial for attempted smuggling \nunder § 1182(a)(6)(E).2 \n Yafai and Ahmed subsequently filed suit challenging the \ndenial under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the \nAdministrative Procedure Act. They argued that the consular \nofficer acted in bad faith by ignoring evidence that Yaqub and \nKhaled were their children and that they were deceased. The \ndistrict court dismissed the claims under the doctrine of \nconsular nonreviewability. \n II. \n Congress has delegated the power to determine who may \nenter the country to the Executive Branch, and courts \ngenerally have no authority to second‐guess the Executive’s \ndecisions. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769–70 (1972). To \nthat end, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability “bars \njudicial review of visa decisions made by consular officials \n\n2 The record before us does not include additional detail on the rationale \n\nbehind the consular officer’s decision. It does not show, for example, \nwhether the officer concluded that Ahmed and Yafai did not have children \nnamed Yaqub and Khaled; whether the officer thought that Ahmed had \ntried to smuggle children into the United States using the names of \nchildren who were hers but who were now deceased; or whether the \nofficer believed that Ahmed had children named Yaqub and Khaled \nwhom she had tried to smuggle into the United States while they were still \nalive. If Ahmed tried to smuggle her own children into the United States, \nshe could seek a waiver of the statutory bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11) \n(giving the Attorney General the discretion to waive the bar if “the alien \nseeking admission … encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided \nonly an individual who at the time of such action was the alien’s spouse, \nparent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United \nStates in violation of law”). She has apparently not done so. \n\nNo. 18‐1205 5 \n\nabroad.” Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 294 (7th Cir. \n2017). The Supreme Court has identified a limited exception \nto this doctrine, however, when the visa denial implicates a \nconstitutional right of an American citizen. Mandel, 408 U.S. \nat 769–70; see Morfin v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 710, 711 (7th Cir. \n2017). Yet even in that circumstance, a court may not disturb \nthe consular officer’s decision if the reason given is “facially \nlegitimate and bona fide.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 769. \n The plaintiffs invoke this limited exception to the doctrine \nof consular nonreviewability on the ground that denying \nAhmed a visa implicates one of Yafai’s constitutional rights: \nhis right to live in America with his spouse. The status of this \nright is uncertain. In Kerry v. Din, a plurality of the Supreme \nCourt said that no such right exists, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) \n(plurality opinion), and if we were to adopt the plurality’s \nreasoning, our analysis would end here. But we have avoided \ntaking a position on this issue in the past, see, e.g., Hazama v. \nTillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017), and we need not do \nso now. Even if the denial of Ahmed’s visa application \nimplicated a constitutional right of Yafai’s, his claim fails \nbecause the consular officer’s decision was facially legitimate \nand bona fide. \n For a consular officer’s decision to be facially legitimate \nand bona fide, the consular officer must identify (1) a valid \nstatute of inadmissibility and (2) the necessary “discrete \nfactual predicates” under the statute. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at \n2140–41 (Kennedy, J., concurring). When a statute “specifies \ndiscrete factual predicates that the consular officer must find \nto exist before denying a visa,” the citation of the statutory \npredicates is itself sufficient. Id. at 2141. In other words, the \nconsular officer need not disclose the underlying facts that led \n\n6 No. 18‐1205 \n\nhim to conclude that the statute was satisfied. Id. (“Mandel \ninstructs us not to ‘look behind’ the Government’s exclusion \nof [the alien spouse] for additional factual details beyond \nwhat its express reliance on [the relevant statutory provision] \nencompassed.”) (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770)); see also \nMorfin, 851 F.3d at 713–14 (explaining that citation to the \nstatutory requirements supplies a legitimate reason for \ndenying a visa application). \n Here, the officer provided a facially legitimate and bona \nfide reason for denying Ahmed’s application. He cited a valid \nstatutory basis: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). And he provided the \nfactual predicate for his decision: “You attempted to smuggle \ntwo children into the United States using the identities Yaqub \nMohsin Yafai and Khaled Mohsin Yafai.” No more was \nrequired, and under Mandel, we cannot “look behind the \nexercise of that discretion.” 408 U.S. at 770.3 \n\n\n\n\n3 The dissent acknowledges that precedent requires nothing more than the \n\nconsular officer’s assertion of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Moshin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-04\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18‐1205 \\nMOSHIN YAFAI and ZAHOOR AHMED, \\n Plaintiffs‐Appellants, \\n v. \\n\\nMIKE POMPEO, Secretary of State, et al., \\n Defendants‐Appellees. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cv‐09728 — Sara L. Ellis, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 4, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. \\n BARRETT, Circuit Judge. A consular officer twice denied the \\nvisa application of Zahoor Ahmed, a citizen of Yemen, on the \\nground that she had sought to smuggle two children into the \\nUnited States. Ahmed and her husband Moshin Yafai—a \\nUnited States citizen—filed suit challenging the officer’s \\ndecision. But the decision is facially legitimate and bona fide, \\nso the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ \\n\\n2 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nchallenge to it under the doctrine of consular \\nnonreviewability. \\n I. \\n Moshin Yafai and Zahoor Ahmed were born, raised, and \\nmarried in Yemen. Yafai became a naturalized United States \\ncitizen in 2001. After receiving his citizenship, Yafai filed I‐\\n130 petitions with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration \\nService of the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of \\nhis wife and several of their children. The I‐130 petitions—\\nwhich, if granted, would permit them to apply for immigrant \\nvisas—were approved. Ahmed and her children \\nsubsequently applied for visas. \\n But the consular officer denied Ahmed’s visa application.1 \\nThe officer based the denial on attempted smuggling under 8 \\nU.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E), which provides that “[a]ny alien who \\nat any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, \\nabetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the \\nUnited States in violation of law is inadmissible.” The denial \\nstated: “You attempted to smuggle two children into the \\nUnited States using the identities Yaqub Mohsin Yafai and \\nKhaled Mohsin Yafai.” \\n Yafai and Ahmed told the embassy that Yaqub and Khaled \\nwere their children, both of whom had tragically drowned. \\nAlthough it is not entirely clear from either the record or the \\nplaintiffs’ brief, their position seems to have been that Ahmed \\ncould not be guilty of smuggling, because the children whom \\nshe had allegedly smuggled were deceased. In response, the \\n\\n1 The record does not reveal the name of the consular officer (or officers) \\n\\nwho worked on Ahmed’s case, so we refer to this person (or persons) \\nthroughout as “the consular officer” or “the officer.” \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 3 \\n\\nconsular officer requested additional documents about the \\nchildren so that the officer could reconsider Ahmed’s \\napplication. The officer requested (and Ahmed provided) \\nseven types of documents: (1) vaccination records; (2) \\nKhaled’s school records; (3) hospital bills; (4) hospital birth \\nrecords; (5) the police report from the drowning accident; (6) \\nKhaled’s passport; and (7) family photos. \\n After providing the documents, the plaintiffs’ attorney \\ncontacted the consular office to request an update on the \\nmatter. An embassy fraud prevention manager working on \\nAhmed’s case responded by email. The email stated: \\n We acknowledge that there has been some \\n repetition in examining the circumstances of the \\n purported deaths of two beneficiaries, but we \\n note that your clients do not testify credibly, \\n testify contradictorily, deny the existence of \\n evidence, and otherwise cast doubt on the \\n accuracy of their responses. Hence they were \\n questioned by the interviewing officer who \\n referred their cases to the Fraud Prevention Unit \\n whereupon we explored the same issues in \\n more detail with you[r] clients. Based on their \\n testimony, we concluded the evidence which \\n you attached did exist, hence we requested its \\n production in an effort to corroborate the \\n testimony of your clients, not impeach it. As of \\n this writing, a fraud investigator is reviewing \\n the evidence and we will finalize our fraud \\n report for the adjudicating officer. \\n\\n4 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nSeveral months after this email was sent, the consular officer \\nreaffirmed the prior visa denial for attempted smuggling \\nunder § 1182(a)(6)(E).2 \\n Yafai and Ahmed subsequently filed suit challenging the \\ndenial under the Declaratory Judgment Act and the \\nAdministrative Procedure Act. They argued that the consular \\nofficer acted in bad faith by ignoring evidence that Yaqub and \\nKhaled were their children and that they were deceased. The \\ndistrict court dismissed the claims under the doctrine of \\nconsular nonreviewability. \\n II. \\n Congress has delegated the power to determine who may \\nenter the country to the Executive Branch, and courts \\ngenerally have no authority to second‐guess the Executive’s \\ndecisions. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 769–70 (1972). To \\nthat end, the doctrine of consular nonreviewability “bars \\njudicial review of visa decisions made by consular officials \\n\\n2 The record before us does not include additional detail on the rationale \\n\\nbehind the consular officer’s decision. It does not show, for example, \\nwhether the officer concluded that Ahmed and Yafai did not have children \\nnamed Yaqub and Khaled; whether the officer thought that Ahmed had \\ntried to smuggle children into the United States using the names of \\nchildren who were hers but who were now deceased; or whether the \\nofficer believed that Ahmed had children named Yaqub and Khaled \\nwhom she had tried to smuggle into the United States while they were still \\nalive. If Ahmed tried to smuggle her own children into the United States, \\nshe could seek a waiver of the statutory bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(11) \\n(giving the Attorney General the discretion to waive the bar if “the alien \\nseeking admission … encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided \\nonly an individual who at the time of such action was the alien’s spouse, \\nparent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United \\nStates in violation of law”). She has apparently not done so. \\n\\nNo. 18‐1205 5 \\n\\nabroad.” Matushkina v. Nielsen, 877 F.3d 289, 294 (7th Cir. \\n2017). The Supreme Court has identified a limited exception \\nto this doctrine, however, when the visa denial implicates a \\nconstitutional right of an American citizen. Mandel, 408 U.S. \\nat 769–70; see Morfin v. Tillerson, 851 F.3d 710, 711 (7th Cir. \\n2017). Yet even in that circumstance, a court may not disturb \\nthe consular officer’s decision if the reason given is “facially \\nlegitimate and bona fide.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 769. \\n The plaintiffs invoke this limited exception to the doctrine \\nof consular nonreviewability on the ground that denying \\nAhmed a visa implicates one of Yafai’s constitutional rights: \\nhis right to live in America with his spouse. The status of this \\nright is uncertain. In Kerry v. Din, a plurality of the Supreme \\nCourt said that no such right exists, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2131 (2015) \\n(plurality opinion), and if we were to adopt the plurality’s \\nreasoning, our analysis would end here. But we have avoided \\ntaking a position on this issue in the past, see, e.g., Hazama v. \\nTillerson, 851 F.3d 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2017), and we need not do \\nso now. Even if the denial of Ahmed’s visa application \\nimplicated a constitutional right of Yafai’s, his claim fails \\nbecause the consular officer’s decision was facially legitimate \\nand bona fide. \\n For a consular officer’s decision to be facially legitimate \\nand bona fide, the consular officer must identify (1) a valid \\nstatute of inadmissibility and (2) the necessary “discrete \\nfactual predicates” under the statute. See Din, 135 S. Ct. at \\n2140–41 (Kennedy, J., concurring). When a statute “specifies \\ndiscrete factual predicates that the consular officer must find \\nto exist before denying a visa,” the citation of the statutory \\npredicates is itself sufficient. Id. at 2141. In other words, the \\nconsular officer need not disclose the underlying facts that led \\n\\n6 No. 18‐1205 \\n\\nhim to conclude that the statute was satisfied. Id. (“Mandel \\ninstructs us not to ‘look behind’ the Government’s exclusion \\nof [the alien spouse] for additional factual details beyond \\nwhat its express reliance on [the relevant statutory provision] \\nencompassed.”) (citing Mandel, 408 U.S. at 770)); see also \\nMorfin, 851 F.3d at 713–14 (explaining that citation to the \\nstatutory requirements supplies a legitimate reason for \\ndenying a visa application). \\n Here, the officer provided a facially legitimate and bona \\nfide reason for denying Ahmed’s application. He cited a valid \\nstatutory basis: 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(E). And he provided the \\nfactual predicate for his decision: “You attempted to smuggle \\ntwo children into the United States using the identities Yaqub \\nMohsin Yafai and Khaled Mohsin Yafai.” No more was \\nrequired, and under Mandel, we cannot “look behind the \\nexercise of that discretion.” 408 U.S. at 770.3 \\n\\n\\n\\n\\n3 The dissent acknowledges that precedent requires nothing more than the \\n\\nconsular officer’s assertion of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":183,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579282,"string":"4,579,282"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Marco Proano"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3466"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3466 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMARCO PROANO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \\nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \\ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \\nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \\nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\n I. Background \\nA. The Shooting \\n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \\nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \\nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \\nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \\nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \\npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \\nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \\nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \\nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \\nparked on the street. \\n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \\nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \\nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \\nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \\nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \\nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \\nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\\nherty dispatched for backup. \\n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \\nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \\nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \\nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \\nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \\n\\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \\none was in its path. \\n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \\ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \\nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \\napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \\nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \\nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \\npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \\nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \\nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \\npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\\nficer fired his weapon. \\n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \\nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \\nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \\nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \\nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \\ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \\nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \\nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \\nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \\n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \\nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \\nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \\nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \\nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \\ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \\nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \\nB. The Prosecution \\n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \\nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \\nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \\nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \\n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \\nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \\nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \\nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \\ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \\ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \\nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \\nsources” for any information the government could have \\ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \\n \\n1 \\n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \\nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \\nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\\nally vague about their contents. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \\n\\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \\nto trial. \\n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \\nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \\nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \\nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \\ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \\nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \\nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \\nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \\npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \\nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \\nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \\nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \\nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \\nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \\n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \\nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \\nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \\nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \\nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \\n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \\nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \\ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \\nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \\nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \\nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \\nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \\nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \\nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \\nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \\nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \\nprotect the life of another. \\n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \\ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \\nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \\nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \\nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \\nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \\nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \\nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \\nthreat.” \\n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \\nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \\nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \\nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \\nof the footage. \\n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \\njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \\n\\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \\ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \\ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \\n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \\nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \\nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \\nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \\nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \\nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \\n II. Discussion \\n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \\nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \\nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \\nchallenge in turn. \\nA. The Garrity Motion \\n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \\nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \\nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \\nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \\npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \\ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \\nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \\n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \\nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \\nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \\n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \\nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \\nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \\n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \\nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \\nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \\na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \\nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \\nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \\nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \\ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \\nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \\nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \\nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \\nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \\nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \\ncourt. That is not clear error. \\n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \\nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \\nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \\nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \\nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \\nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \\nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \\n\\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \\nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \\nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \\n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \\nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \\nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \\nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \\nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \\nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \\nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \\nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \\ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \\nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \\nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \\nprosecutors. \\nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \\n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \\ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \\nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \\nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \\n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \\n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \\nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \\nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \\nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \\n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \\n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \\nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \\nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \\nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \\ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \\nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \\nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \\n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \\n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \\nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \\n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \\n \\n2 \\n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \\nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \\n\\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \\nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \\nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \\nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \\n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \\npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \\nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \\nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \\ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \\nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \\nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \\nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \\ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \\nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \\ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \\nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \\nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \\nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \\nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \\nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \\nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \\ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \\ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \\nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\\nlated evidence. \\n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \\nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \\nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \\nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \\nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \\nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \\n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \\n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \\nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \\ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \\na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \\nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \\nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \\nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \\nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \\ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\\nfore offers no guide here. \\n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \\nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \\nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \\non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \\n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \\nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \\n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \\nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \\nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \\nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \\n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \\n\\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \\nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \\nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \\n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \\n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \\n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \\nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \\nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \\ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \\ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \\ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \\nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \\nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \\n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \\nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \\ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \\nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \\nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \\n \\n3 \\n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \\nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \\npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \\nhere. \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \\n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \\n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \\nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \\nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \\nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \\nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \\nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \\n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \\n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \\nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \\nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \\n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \\nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \\nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \\nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \\ninstructed the jury: \\n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \\n should not consider this training when you decide \\n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \\n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \\n\\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \\n time he acted.4 \\n\\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \\nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \\n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \\nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \\nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \\nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \\nof unfair prejudice). \\n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \\nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \\ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \\nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \\ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \\nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \\nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \\namounted to violating § 242. \\n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \\n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \\nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \\nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \\ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \\nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \\n \\n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\\n\\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \\ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \\ntestimony.” Id. \\n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \\ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \\ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \\n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \\ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \\nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \\nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \\nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \\nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \\nacademy. \\n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \\nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \\ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \\nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \\nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \\ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \\ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \\n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \\nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \\nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \\nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \\n\\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \\nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \\nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \\nC. Willfulness Instruction \\n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \\nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \\nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \\nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \\n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \\nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \\ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \\nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \\ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \\nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \\nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \\nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \\nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \\nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \\nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \\nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \\n \\n5\\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \\ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \\nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \\ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\\nview. \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \\nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \\nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \\n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \\n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \\nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \\n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \\nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \\nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \\nexplained further: \\n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \\n knowing that the force he used was more than what \\n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \\n if he did not know that the force he used was more \\n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\\n der the circumstances. \\nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \\nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \\nWe disagree. \\n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \\nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \\nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \\nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \\nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \\nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \\n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \\nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \\n\\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \\nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \\nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \\nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \\nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \\n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \\nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \\nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \\n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \\nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \\nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \\nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \\nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \\nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \\n\\n\\n \\n6 \\n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \\n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \\n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \\n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \\nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \\ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \\nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \\n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \\nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \\nthe district court fairly stated the law. \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \\n“knowing” out of the instruction. \\n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \\njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \\nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \\nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \\nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \\ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \\nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \\ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \\nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \\n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \\nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \\nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \\nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \\n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \\nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \\nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \\n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \\n893 F.3d at 484. \\n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \\nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \\nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \\n\\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \\nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \\nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \\ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \\nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \\nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \\n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \\n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \\n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \\nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \\nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \\nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\\ntation omitted). \\n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \\nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \\npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \\nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \\nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \\nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \\ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \\ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \\nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \\nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \\nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \\nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \\nToyota stopped its retreat. \\n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \\njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \\n\\f22 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \\nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \\nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \\nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \\nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \\nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \\nfired in reaction to the weapon. \\n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \\nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \\ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \\nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \\narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \\nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \\nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \\nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \\n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \\nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \\nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \\nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \\nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \\nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \\neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \\nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \\n\\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \\nonce a suspect is subdued”). \\n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \\nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \\ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \\nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \\nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \\nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \\nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \\nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \\nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \\nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \\nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \\nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \\nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \\nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \\n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \\nto convict Proano on both counts. \\n III. Conclusion \\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\\nment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356535/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579282/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Marco Proano\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3466 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \n v. \n\nMARCO PROANO, \n Defendant‐Appellant. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \n\f2 No. 17‐3466 \n\n I. Background \nA. The Shooting \n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \nparked on the street. \n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\nherty dispatched for backup. \n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \n\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \n\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \none was in its path. \n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\nficer fired his weapon. \n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \n\f4 No. 17‐3466 \n\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \nB. The Prosecution \n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \nsources” for any information the government could have \ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \n \n1 \n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\nally vague about their contents. \n\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \n\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \nto trial. \n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \n\f6 No. 17‐3466 \n\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \nprotect the life of another. \n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \nthreat.” \n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \nof the footage. \n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \n\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \n\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \n II. Discussion \n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \nchallenge in turn. \nA. The Garrity Motion \n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \n\f8 No. 17‐3466 \n\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \ncourt. That is not clear error. \n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \n\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \n\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \nprosecutors. \nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \n\f10 No. 17‐3466 \n\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \n \n2 \n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \n\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \n\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\nlated evidence. \n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \n\f12 No. 17‐3466 \n\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\nfore offers no guide here. \n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \n\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \n\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \n \n3 \n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \nhere. \n\f14 No. 17‐3466 \n\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \ninstructed the jury: \n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \n should not consider this training when you decide \n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \n\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \n\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \n time he acted.4 \n\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \nof unfair prejudice). \n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \namounted to violating § 242. \n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \n \n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\n\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \n\f16 No. 17‐3466 \n\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \ntestimony.” Id. \n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \nacademy. \n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \n\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \n\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \nC. Willfulness Instruction \n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \n \n5\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\nview. \n\f18 No. 17‐3466 \n\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \nexplained further: \n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \n knowing that the force he used was more than what \n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \n if he did not know that the force he used was more \n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\n der the circumstances. \nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \nWe disagree. \n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \n\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \n\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \n\n\n \n6 \n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \nthe district court fairly stated the law. \n\f20 No. 17‐3466 \n\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \n“knowing” out of the instruction. \n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \n893 F.3d at 484. \n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \n\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \n\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\ntation omitted). \n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \nToyota stopped its retreat. \n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \n\f22 No. 17‐3466 \n\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \nfired in reaction to the weapon. \n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\n\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \n\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \nonce a suspect is subdued”). \n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \nto convict Proano on both counts. \n III. Conclusion \n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\nment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Marco Proano\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3466 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMARCO PROANO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \\nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \\ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \\nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \\nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\n I. Background \\nA. The Shooting \\n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \\nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \\nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \\nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \\nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \\npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \\nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \\nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \\nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \\nparked on the street. \\n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \\nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \\nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \\nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \\nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \\nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \\nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\\nherty dispatched for backup. \\n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \\nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \\nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \\nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \\nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \\n\\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \\none was in its path. \\n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \\ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \\nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \\napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \\nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \\nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \\npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \\nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \\nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \\npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\\nficer fired his weapon. \\n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \\nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \\nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \\nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \\nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \\ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \\nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \\nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \\nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \\n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \\nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \\nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \\nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \\nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \\ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \\nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \\nB. The Prosecution \\n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \\nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \\nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \\nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \\n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \\nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \\nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \\nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \\ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \\ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \\nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \\nsources” for any information the government could have \\ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \\n \\n1 \\n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \\nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \\nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\\nally vague about their contents. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \\n\\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \\nto trial. \\n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \\nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \\nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \\nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \\ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \\nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \\nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \\nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \\npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \\nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \\nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \\nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \\nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \\nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \\n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \\nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \\nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \\nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \\nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \\n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \\nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \\ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \\nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \\nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \\nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \\nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \\nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \\nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \\nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \\nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \\nprotect the life of another. \\n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \\ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \\nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \\nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \\nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \\nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \\nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \\nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \\nthreat.” \\n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \\nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \\nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \\nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \\nof the footage. \\n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \\njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \\n\\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \\ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \\ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \\n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \\nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \\nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \\nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \\nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \\nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \\n II. Discussion \\n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \\nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \\nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \\nchallenge in turn. \\nA. The Garrity Motion \\n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \\nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \\nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \\nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \\npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \\ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \\nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \\n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \\nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \\nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \\n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \\nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \\nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \\n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \\nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \\nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \\na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \\nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \\nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \\nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \\ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \\nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \\nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \\nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \\nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \\nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \\ncourt. That is not clear error. \\n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \\nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \\nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \\nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \\nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \\nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \\nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \\n\\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \\nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \\nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \\n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \\nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \\nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \\nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \\nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \\nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \\nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \\nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \\ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \\nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \\nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \\nprosecutors. \\nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \\n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \\ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \\nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \\nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \\n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \\n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \\nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \\nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \\nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \\n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \\n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \\nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \\nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \\nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \\ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \\nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \\nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \\n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \\n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \\nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \\n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \\n \\n2 \\n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \\nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \\n\\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \\nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \\nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \\nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \\n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \\npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \\nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \\nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \\ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \\nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \\nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \\nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \\ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \\nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \\ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \\nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \\nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \\nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \\nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \\nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \\nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \\ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \\ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \\nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\\nlated evidence. \\n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \\nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \\nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \\nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \\nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \\nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \\n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \\n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \\nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \\ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \\na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \\nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \\nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \\nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \\nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \\ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\\nfore offers no guide here. \\n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \\nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \\nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \\non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \\n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \\nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \\n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \\nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \\nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \\nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \\n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \\n\\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \\nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \\nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \\n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \\n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \\n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \\nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \\nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \\ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \\ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \\ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \\nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \\nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \\n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \\nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \\ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \\nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \\nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \\n \\n3 \\n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \\nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \\npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \\nhere. \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \\n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \\n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \\nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \\nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \\nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \\nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \\nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \\n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \\n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \\nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \\nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \\n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \\nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \\nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \\nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \\ninstructed the jury: \\n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \\n should not consider this training when you decide \\n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \\n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \\n\\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \\n time he acted.4 \\n\\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \\nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \\n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \\nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \\nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \\nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \\nof unfair prejudice). \\n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \\nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \\ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \\nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \\ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \\nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \\nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \\namounted to violating § 242. \\n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \\n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \\nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \\nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \\ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \\nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \\n \\n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\\n\\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \\ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \\ntestimony.” Id. \\n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \\ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \\ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \\n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \\ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \\nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \\nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \\nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \\nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \\nacademy. \\n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \\nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \\ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \\nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \\nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \\ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \\ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \\n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \\nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \\nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \\nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \\n\\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \\nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \\nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \\nC. Willfulness Instruction \\n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \\nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \\nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \\nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \\n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \\nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \\ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \\nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \\ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \\nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \\nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \\nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \\nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \\nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \\nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \\nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \\n \\n5\\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \\ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \\nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \\ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\\nview. \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \\nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \\nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \\n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \\n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \\nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \\n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \\nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \\nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \\nexplained further: \\n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \\n knowing that the force he used was more than what \\n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \\n if he did not know that the force he used was more \\n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\\n der the circumstances. \\nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \\nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \\nWe disagree. \\n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \\nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \\nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \\nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \\nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \\nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \\n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \\nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \\n\\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \\nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \\nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \\nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \\nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \\n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \\nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \\nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \\n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \\nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \\nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \\nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \\nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \\nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \\n\\n\\n \\n6 \\n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \\n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \\n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \\n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \\nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \\ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \\nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \\n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \\nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \\nthe district court fairly stated the law. \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \\n“knowing” out of the instruction. \\n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \\njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \\nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \\nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \\nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \\ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \\nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \\ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \\nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \\n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \\nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \\nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \\nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \\n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \\nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \\nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \\n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \\n893 F.3d at 484. \\n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \\nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \\nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \\n\\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \\nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \\nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \\ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \\nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \\nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \\n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \\n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \\n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \\nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \\nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \\nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\\ntation omitted). \\n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \\nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \\npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \\nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \\nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \\nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \\ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \\ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \\nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \\nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \\nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \\nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \\nToyota stopped its retreat. \\n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \\njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \\n\\f22 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \\nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \\nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \\nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \\nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \\nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \\nfired in reaction to the weapon. \\n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \\nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \\ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \\nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \\narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \\nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \\nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \\nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \\n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \\nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \\nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \\nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \\nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \\nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \\neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \\nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \\n\\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \\nonce a suspect is subdued”). \\n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \\nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \\ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \\nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \\nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \\nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \\nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \\nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \\nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \\nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \\nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \\nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \\nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \\nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \\n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \\nto convict Proano on both counts. \\n III. Conclusion \\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\\nment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":184,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579287,"string":"4,579,287"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Marco Proano"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3466"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3466 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMARCO PROANO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \\nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \\ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \\nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \\nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\n I. Background \\nA. The Shooting \\n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \\nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \\nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \\nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \\nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \\npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \\nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \\nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \\nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \\nparked on the street. \\n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \\nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \\nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \\nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \\nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \\nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \\nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\\nherty dispatched for backup. \\n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \\nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \\nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \\nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \\nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \\n\\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \\none was in its path. \\n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \\ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \\nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \\napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \\nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \\nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \\npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \\nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \\nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \\npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\\nficer fired his weapon. \\n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \\nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \\nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \\nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \\nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \\ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \\nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \\nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \\nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \\n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \\nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \\nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \\nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \\nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \\ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \\nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \\nB. The Prosecution \\n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \\nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \\nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \\nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \\n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \\nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \\nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \\nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \\ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \\ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \\nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \\nsources” for any information the government could have \\ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \\n \\n1 \\n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \\nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \\nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\\nally vague about their contents. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \\n\\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \\nto trial. \\n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \\nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \\nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \\nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \\ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \\nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \\nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \\nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \\npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \\nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \\nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \\nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \\nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \\nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \\n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \\nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \\nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \\nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \\nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \\n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \\nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \\ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \\nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \\nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \\nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \\nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \\nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \\nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \\nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \\nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \\nprotect the life of another. \\n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \\ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \\nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \\nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \\nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \\nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \\nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \\nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \\nthreat.” \\n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \\nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \\nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \\nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \\nof the footage. \\n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \\njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \\n\\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \\ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \\ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \\n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \\nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \\nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \\nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \\nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \\nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \\n II. Discussion \\n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \\nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \\nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \\nchallenge in turn. \\nA. The Garrity Motion \\n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \\nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \\nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \\nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \\npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \\ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \\nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \\n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \\nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \\nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \\n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \\nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \\nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \\n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \\nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \\nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \\na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \\nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \\nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \\nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \\ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \\nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \\nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \\nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \\nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \\nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \\ncourt. That is not clear error. \\n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \\nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \\nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \\nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \\nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \\nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \\nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \\n\\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \\nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \\nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \\n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \\nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \\nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \\nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \\nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \\nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \\nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \\nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \\ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \\nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \\nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \\nprosecutors. \\nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \\n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \\ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \\nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \\nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \\n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \\n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \\nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \\nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \\nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \\n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \\n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \\nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \\nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \\nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \\ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \\nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \\nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \\n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \\n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \\nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \\n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \\n \\n2 \\n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \\nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \\n\\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \\nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \\nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \\nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \\n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \\npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \\nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \\nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \\ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \\nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \\nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \\nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \\ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \\nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \\ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \\nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \\nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \\nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \\nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \\nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \\nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \\ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \\ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \\nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\\nlated evidence. \\n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \\nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \\nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \\nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \\nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \\nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \\n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \\n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \\nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \\ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \\na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \\nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \\nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \\nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \\nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \\ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\\nfore offers no guide here. \\n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \\nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \\nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \\non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \\n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \\nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \\n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \\nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \\nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \\nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \\n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \\n\\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \\nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \\nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \\n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \\n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \\n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \\nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \\nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \\ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \\ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \\ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \\nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \\nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \\n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \\nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \\ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \\nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \\nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \\n \\n3 \\n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \\nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \\npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \\nhere. \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \\n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \\n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \\nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \\nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \\nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \\nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \\nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \\n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \\n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \\nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \\nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \\n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \\nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \\nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \\nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \\ninstructed the jury: \\n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \\n should not consider this training when you decide \\n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \\n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \\n\\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \\n time he acted.4 \\n\\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \\nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \\n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \\nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \\nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \\nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \\nof unfair prejudice). \\n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \\nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \\ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \\nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \\ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \\nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \\nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \\namounted to violating § 242. \\n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \\n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \\nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \\nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \\ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \\nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \\n \\n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\\n\\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \\ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \\ntestimony.” Id. \\n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \\ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \\ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \\n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \\ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \\nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \\nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \\nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \\nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \\nacademy. \\n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \\nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \\ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \\nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \\nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \\ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \\ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \\n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \\nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \\nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \\nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \\n\\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \\nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \\nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \\nC. Willfulness Instruction \\n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \\nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \\nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \\nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \\n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \\nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \\ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \\nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \\ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \\nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \\nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \\nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \\nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \\nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \\nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \\nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \\n \\n5\\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \\ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \\nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \\ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\\nview. \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \\nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \\nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \\n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \\n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \\nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \\n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \\nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \\nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \\nexplained further: \\n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \\n knowing that the force he used was more than what \\n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \\n if he did not know that the force he used was more \\n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\\n der the circumstances. \\nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \\nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \\nWe disagree. \\n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \\nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \\nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \\nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \\nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \\nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \\n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \\nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \\n\\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \\nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \\nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \\nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \\nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \\n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \\nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \\nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \\n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \\nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \\nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \\nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \\nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \\nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \\n\\n\\n \\n6 \\n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \\n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \\n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \\n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \\nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \\ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \\nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \\n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \\nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \\nthe district court fairly stated the law. \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \\n“knowing” out of the instruction. \\n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \\njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \\nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \\nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \\nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \\ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \\nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \\ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \\nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \\n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \\nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \\nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \\nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \\n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \\nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \\nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \\n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \\n893 F.3d at 484. \\n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \\nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \\nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \\n\\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \\nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \\nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \\ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \\nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \\nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \\n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \\n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \\n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \\nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \\nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \\nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\\ntation omitted). \\n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \\nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \\npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \\nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \\nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \\nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \\ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \\ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \\nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \\nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \\nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \\nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \\nToyota stopped its retreat. \\n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \\njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \\n\\f22 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \\nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \\nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \\nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \\nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \\nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \\nfired in reaction to the weapon. \\n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \\nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \\ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \\nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \\narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \\nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \\nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \\nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \\n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \\nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \\nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \\nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \\nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \\nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \\neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \\nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \\n\\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \\nonce a suspect is subdued”). \\n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \\nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \\ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \\nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \\nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \\nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \\nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \\nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \\nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \\nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \\nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \\nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \\nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \\nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \\n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \\nto convict Proano on both counts. \\n III. Conclusion \\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\\nment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356540/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579287/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Marco Proano\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3466 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \n v. \n\nMARCO PROANO, \n Defendant‐Appellant. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \n\f2 No. 17‐3466 \n\n I. Background \nA. The Shooting \n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \nparked on the street. \n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\nherty dispatched for backup. \n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \n\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \n\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \none was in its path. \n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\nficer fired his weapon. \n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \n\f4 No. 17‐3466 \n\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \nB. The Prosecution \n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \nsources” for any information the government could have \ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \n \n1 \n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\nally vague about their contents. \n\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \n\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \nto trial. \n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \n\f6 No. 17‐3466 \n\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \nprotect the life of another. \n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \nthreat.” \n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \nof the footage. \n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \n\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \n\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \n II. Discussion \n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \nchallenge in turn. \nA. The Garrity Motion \n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \n\f8 No. 17‐3466 \n\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \ncourt. That is not clear error. \n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \n\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \n\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \nprosecutors. \nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \n\f10 No. 17‐3466 \n\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \n \n2 \n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \n\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \n\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\nlated evidence. \n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \n\f12 No. 17‐3466 \n\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\nfore offers no guide here. \n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \n\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \n\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \n \n3 \n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \nhere. \n\f14 No. 17‐3466 \n\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \ninstructed the jury: \n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \n should not consider this training when you decide \n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \n\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \n\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \n time he acted.4 \n\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \nof unfair prejudice). \n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \namounted to violating § 242. \n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \n \n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\n\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \n\f16 No. 17‐3466 \n\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \ntestimony.” Id. \n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \nacademy. \n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \n\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \n\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \nC. Willfulness Instruction \n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \n \n5\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\nview. \n\f18 No. 17‐3466 \n\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \nexplained further: \n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \n knowing that the force he used was more than what \n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \n if he did not know that the force he used was more \n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\n der the circumstances. \nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \nWe disagree. \n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \n\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \n\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \n\n\n \n6 \n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \nthe district court fairly stated the law. \n\f20 No. 17‐3466 \n\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \n“knowing” out of the instruction. \n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \n893 F.3d at 484. \n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \n\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \n\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\ntation omitted). \n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \nToyota stopped its retreat. \n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \n\f22 No. 17‐3466 \n\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \nfired in reaction to the weapon. \n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\n\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \n\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \nonce a suspect is subdued”). \n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \nto convict Proano on both counts. \n III. Conclusion \n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\nment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Marco Proano\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3466 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMARCO PROANO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \\nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \\ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \\nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \\nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\n I. Background \\nA. The Shooting \\n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \\nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \\nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \\nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \\nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \\npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \\nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \\nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \\nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \\nparked on the street. \\n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \\nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \\nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \\nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \\nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \\nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \\nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\\nherty dispatched for backup. \\n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \\nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \\nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \\nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \\nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \\n\\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \\none was in its path. \\n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \\ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \\nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \\napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \\nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \\nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \\npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \\nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \\nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \\npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\\nficer fired his weapon. \\n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \\nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \\nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \\nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \\nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \\ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \\nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \\nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \\nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \\n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \\nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \\nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \\nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \\nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \\ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \\nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \\nB. The Prosecution \\n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \\nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \\nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \\nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \\n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \\nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \\nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \\nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \\ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \\ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \\nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \\nsources” for any information the government could have \\ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \\n \\n1 \\n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \\nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \\nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\\nally vague about their contents. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \\n\\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \\nto trial. \\n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \\nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \\nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \\nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \\ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \\nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \\nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \\nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \\npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \\nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \\nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \\nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \\nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \\nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \\n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \\nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \\nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \\nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \\nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \\n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \\nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \\ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \\nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \\nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \\nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \\nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \\nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \\nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \\nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \\nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \\nprotect the life of another. \\n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \\ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \\nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \\nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \\nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \\nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \\nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \\nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \\nthreat.” \\n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \\nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \\nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \\nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \\nof the footage. \\n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \\njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \\n\\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \\ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \\ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \\n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \\nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \\nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \\nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \\nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \\nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \\n II. Discussion \\n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \\nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \\nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \\nchallenge in turn. \\nA. The Garrity Motion \\n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \\nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \\nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \\nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \\npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \\ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \\nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \\n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \\nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \\nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \\n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \\nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \\nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \\n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \\nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \\nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \\na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \\nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \\nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \\nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \\ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \\nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \\nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \\nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \\nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \\nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \\ncourt. That is not clear error. \\n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \\nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \\nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \\nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \\nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \\nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \\nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \\n\\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \\nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \\nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \\n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \\nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \\nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \\nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \\nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \\nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \\nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \\nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \\ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \\nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \\nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \\nprosecutors. \\nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \\n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \\ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \\nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \\nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \\n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \\n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \\nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \\nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \\nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \\n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \\n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \\nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \\nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \\nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \\ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \\nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \\nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \\n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \\n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \\nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \\n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \\n \\n2 \\n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \\nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \\n\\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \\nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \\nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \\nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \\n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \\npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \\nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \\nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \\ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \\nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \\nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \\nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \\ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \\nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \\ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \\nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \\nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \\nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \\nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \\nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \\nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \\ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \\ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \\nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\\nlated evidence. \\n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \\nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \\nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \\nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \\nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \\nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \\n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \\n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \\nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \\ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \\na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \\nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \\nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \\nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \\nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \\ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\\nfore offers no guide here. \\n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \\nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \\nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \\non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \\n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \\nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \\n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \\nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \\nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \\nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \\n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \\n\\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \\nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \\nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \\n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \\n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \\n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \\nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \\nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \\ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \\ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \\ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \\nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \\nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \\n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \\nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \\ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \\nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \\nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \\n \\n3 \\n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \\nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \\npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \\nhere. \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \\n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \\n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \\nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \\nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \\nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \\nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \\nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \\n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \\n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \\nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \\nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \\n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \\nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \\nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \\nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \\ninstructed the jury: \\n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \\n should not consider this training when you decide \\n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \\n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \\n\\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \\n time he acted.4 \\n\\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \\nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \\n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \\nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \\nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \\nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \\nof unfair prejudice). \\n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \\nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \\ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \\nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \\ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \\nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \\nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \\namounted to violating § 242. \\n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \\n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \\nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \\nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \\ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \\nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \\n \\n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\\n\\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \\ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \\ntestimony.” Id. \\n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \\ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \\ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \\n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \\ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \\nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \\nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \\nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \\nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \\nacademy. \\n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \\nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \\ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \\nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \\nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \\ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \\ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \\n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \\nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \\nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \\nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \\n\\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \\nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \\nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \\nC. Willfulness Instruction \\n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \\nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \\nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \\nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \\n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \\nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \\ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \\nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \\ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \\nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \\nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \\nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \\nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \\nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \\nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \\nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \\n \\n5\\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \\ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \\nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \\ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\\nview. \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \\nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \\nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \\n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \\n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \\nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \\n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \\nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \\nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \\nexplained further: \\n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \\n knowing that the force he used was more than what \\n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \\n if he did not know that the force he used was more \\n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\\n der the circumstances. \\nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \\nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \\nWe disagree. \\n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \\nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \\nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \\nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \\nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \\nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \\n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \\nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \\n\\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \\nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \\nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \\nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \\nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \\n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \\nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \\nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \\n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \\nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \\nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \\nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \\nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \\nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \\n\\n\\n \\n6 \\n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \\n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \\n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \\n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \\nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \\ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \\nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \\n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \\nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \\nthe district court fairly stated the law. \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \\n“knowing” out of the instruction. \\n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \\njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \\nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \\nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \\nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \\ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \\nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \\ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \\nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \\n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \\nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \\nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \\nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \\n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \\nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \\nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \\n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \\n893 F.3d at 484. \\n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \\nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \\nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \\n\\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \\nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \\nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \\ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \\nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \\nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \\n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \\n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \\n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \\nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \\nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \\nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\\ntation omitted). \\n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \\nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \\npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \\nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \\nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \\nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \\ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \\ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \\nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \\nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \\nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \\nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \\nToyota stopped its retreat. \\n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \\njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \\n\\f22 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \\nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \\nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \\nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \\nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \\nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \\nfired in reaction to the weapon. \\n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \\nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \\ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \\nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \\narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \\nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \\nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \\nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \\n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \\nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \\nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \\nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \\nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \\nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \\neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \\nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \\n\\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \\nonce a suspect is subdued”). \\n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \\nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \\ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \\nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \\nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \\nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \\nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \\nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \\nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \\nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \\nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \\nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \\nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \\nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \\n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \\nto convict Proano on both counts. \\n III. Conclusion \\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\\nment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":185,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579288,"string":"4,579,288"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"ORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Keith DAUBENSPECK, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Keith Daubenspeck"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1815"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Wood, Easterbrook, Brennan\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1815\\nORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nKEITH DAUBENSPECK, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:16-cv-10849 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\\nBRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Hype and reality can be at odds.\\nThis contrast arises often in postmortems on once-fashiona-\\nble, now-failed investment securities. Hype can raise inves-\\ntors’ hopes and, in turn, capital contributions. But when hype\\naccelerates an investment’s market value beyond its actual\\nworth, a financial bubble is formed.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Fisker Automotive, Inc. was such a bubble, bursting in\\n2013. Plaintiffs, all purchasers of Fisker securities between\\n2009 and 2012, assert various claims against defendants, each\\nof whom played roles in Fisker’s early-stage financing, for\\nallegedly misleading investors regarding Fisker’s intrinsic\\nvalue and imminent collapse. 1 Illinois law provides remedies\\nwhen securities are sold by means of deceptive and fraudu-\\nlent practices. But like any civil action, such claims must be\\ntimely filed. Our review does not explore the cause of or the\\ndefendants’ alleged roles in Fisker’s failure. Rather, we decide\\nwhether plaintiffs’ claims fall within the Illinois securities\\nlaws, and if so whether their claims are time-barred by\\nIllinois’s three-year statute of limitations for securities-based\\nclaims.\\n I\\n A\\n In 2008, Fisker, a manufacturer of luxury hybrid electric\\ncars, began attracting substantial financing as part of a trend\\nin venture capital investments toward green energy technol-\\nogy start-ups. Investor enthusiasm was spurred by a $528.7\\nmillion loan to Fisker from the U.S. Department of Energy,\\nwhich offered direct financial support to manufacturers of\\nclean energy vehicles and components. Under the loan’s\\nterms, the Energy Department advanced Fisker $192 million.\\n\\n\\n 1Plaintiffs-appellants are Orgone Capital III, LLC, David Burnidge,\\nLincolnshire Fisker, LLC, Kenneth A. Steele, Jr., and Robert F. Steel, and\\ndefendants-appellees are Fisker director Keith Daubenspeck, Fisker’s\\nventure capital patron Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Kleiner Perkins’s\\nmanaging partners Ray Lane and John Doerr, and Fisker’s lead invest-\\nment banker Peter McDonnell.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 3\\n\\nThe venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a\\ndefendant here and a controlling shareholder of Fisker,\\nassisted with negotiating and securing the loan to Fisker.\\nPlaintiffs characterize Kleiner Perkins as “politically-con-\\nnected” and a “pioneering titan” of Silicon Valley’s venture\\ncapital industry, known for its “hugely successful early back-\\ning of companies.”\\n Support from the federal government and Kleiner Perkins\\nwere not the only factors sparking investor interest. Celebri-\\nties including tech-industry rainmakers and A-list movie\\nstars invested in Fisker’s future. Media outlets from Wall\\nStreet to Hollywood reported on these luminaries’ investment\\nin and association with Fisker. Further fueling the excitement\\nwas Fisker’s public competition with another emerging\\nplayer in the electric vehicle market, Tesla, Inc.\\n In 2009, before sales began on its first generation of vehi-\\ncles, Fisker announced that beginning in 2012 or 2013 its\\nsecond generation of vehicles would be built in Delaware.\\nDelaware agreed to chip in $21.5 million in state subsidies and\\nVice President Joe Biden and Delaware Governor Jack\\nMarkell participated in Fisker’s media unveiling of this\\neconomic collaboration. Riding this wave of publicity and\\ncontributions, Fisker secured funding from additional\\nventure capital firms and high net worth investors. These\\ninvestors included the five plaintiffs at bar, who collectively\\npurchased over $10 million in Fisker securities. By 2011, insti-\\ntutional and individual investors had poured $1.1 billion into\\nFisker, betting on its revenue potential and sustainability\\nvalues.\\n Fisker’s rise was rapid and highly publicized. So was its\\nfall. In late 2011, Fisker began selling its flagship automobile.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1815\\n\\nBy August 2012, it stopped all manufacturing operations to\\npreserve cash, and in April 2013, Fisker laid off 75% of its re-\\nmaining workforce. That same month, the U.S. Government\\nseized $21 million in cash from Fisker to fulfill its first loan\\npayment. In September 2013, the Energy Department put\\nFisker’s remaining unpaid loan amount (approximately $168\\nmillion) out to bid at a public auction. In November 2013,\\nFisker filed for bankruptcy protection. The bubble had burst,\\nand lawsuits followed.\\n B\\n On October 14, 2016, these plaintiffs filed a class action\\ncomplaint against the defendants alleging fraud, fraudulent\\nconcealment of material information, breach of fiduciary\\nduty, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with\\ntheir purchases of Fisker securities. In the complaint, plain-\\ntiffs referenced a report released on April 17, 2013, by a\\nprivate research firm, PrivCo, entitled “FISKER\\nAUTOMOTIVE’S ROAD TO RUIN: How a ‘Billion-Dollar\\nStartup Became a Billion-Dollar Disaster’.” A press release\\naccompanying this PrivCo Report opined Fisker may go\\ndown as “the most tragic venture capital-backed debacle in\\nrecent history” due to “[t]he sheer scale of investment capital\\nand government loan money.” The PrivCo Report claimed\\nthis money and capital was “squandered so rapidly and with\\nso little to show for it that the wreckage is breathtaking.”\\nAccording to plaintiffs, the PrivCo Report was supported by\\nover 11,000 pages of documents exposing Fisker’s imminent\\nbankruptcy and malfeasant management. The PrivCo Report\\nalso highlighted production and financial data plaintiffs claim\\ndefendants concealed.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 5\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ original complaint also describes several\\ncongressional hearings held in April 2013, one week after the\\nPrivCo Report was published. Those hearings included testi-\\nmony from both government and Fisker officials as part of a\\ncongressional investigation of Fisker’s impending failure and\\nthe loss of $192 million in taxpayer funds.\\n The complaint details how the PrivCo Report and congres-\\nsional hearings “brought to light” and “revealed the defend-\\nants’ alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiffs pleaded “[t]he investi-\\ngations by PrivCo and Congress revealed fraud and breach of\\nfiduciary duties by, among others, [the defendants], in\\nconnection with [d]efendants’ scheme to induce [p]laintiffs\\nand the Class to purchase Fisker Automotive Securities while\\nconcealing from them material adverse information.” Plain-\\ntiffs also alleged that confidential documents disclosed by\\nPrivCo and Congress “revealed” the defendants “knew, but\\nfailed to disclose to plaintiffs and the Class, material infor-\\nmation” concerning Fisker’s production delays. Quoting the\\nPrivCo Report, plaintiffs claim defendants “kept Fisker’s\\ntroubles secret” and concealed Fisker’s cash crisis and\\nmismanagement while attracting new investors. Plaintiffs\\nalleged that defendants secured over $800 million through\\nfraud by disseminating materially false and misleading infor-\\nmation to rescue Kleiner Perkins from its “bad bet” on Fisker.\\n Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as\\nbarred by Illinois’s three-year statute of limitations, 815 ILL.\\nCOMP. STAT. 5/13(D), for securities-based claims. Defendants\\nargued the notices provided by PrivCo and Congress\\noccurred in April 2013, but plaintiffs waited more than three\\nyears to file their complaint in October 2016. The district court\\n\\f6 No. 18-1815\\n\\nagreed and granted defendants’ motion based upon plain-\\ntiffs’ “straightforward factual disclosures” regarding the\\nPrivCo Report and at the congressional hearings. To the\\ndistrict court, these disclosures demonstrated plaintiffs must\\nat a minimum have known facts that, in the exercise of\\nreasonable diligence, would have led to actual knowledge of\\ntheir claims.\\n Although the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint\\nas untimely, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend if they\\nwished “to expressly contradict the court’s conclusion about\\nthe dates that they learned of the facts that would lead them\\nto their claims.”\\n C\\n Plaintiffs accepted the district court’s invitation and\\namended their complaint in three ways. First, they deleted all\\nreferences to the PrivCo Report and congressional hearings.\\nSecond, they asserted Delaware rather than Illinois law\\ncontrols this case under choice of law provisions within\\ncertain Fisker securities purchase agreements. Third, they\\nclaimed they first learned of the defendants’ purported\\nwrongdoing on December 27, 2013, after an action was\\nbrought in Delaware by separate investor plaintiffs against\\nsome of the same defendants here. 2\\n Defendants moved again for dismissal and judgment on\\nthe pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\nand (c). They argued plaintiffs’ amended complaint suffers\\nfrom the same infirmities as the original and that the lawsuit\\n\\n 2 The Delaware plaintiffs raised the same core allegations as the plain-\\n\\ntiffs here, relied on the same information derived from the PrivCo Report\\nand congressional hearings, and were represented by the same counsel.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 7\\n\\nremains time-barred. The district court agreed, and\\nconcluded that plaintiffs’ claims came under Illinois law,\\nregardless of plaintiffs’ contention that Delaware law should\\napply.\\n The district court also ruled that plaintiffs’ amended\\ncomplaint failed to cure the fundamental problem with their\\noriginal complaint, which affirmatively pleaded plaintiffs\\nhad notice of their claims in April 2013. After the first dismis-\\nsal, the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend to “expressly\\ncontradict” its finding that plaintiffs learned of facts in April\\n2013 that would lead them to their claims. But rather than\\nrebut the court’s finding, plaintiffs just deleted all references\\nto the PrivCo Report or congressional hearings from their\\namended complaint. Because this information was not contra-\\ndicted in the amended complaint, the court reaffirmed its\\nprevious conclusion that Illinois’s three-year statute of limita-\\ntions for securities law claims barred plaintiffs’ action, and\\ndismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.\\n II\\n We review de novo a district court’s order granting a Rule\\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.\\nIndep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934\\n(7th Cir. 2012). We similarly review de novo a district court’s\\ngrant of judgment under Rule 12(c). Milwaukee Police Ass'n v.\\nFlynn, 863 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Brooks v. Ross,\\n578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that practical effect of\\naddressing a statute of limitations defense in Rule 12(c)\\nmotion is same as addressing it in Rule 12(b)(6) motion).\\n Where a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish a\\nstatute of limitations defense, the district court may dismiss\\n\\f8 No. 18-1815\\n\\nthe complaint on that ground. O'Gorman v. City of Chicago,\\n777 F.3d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 2015); Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. GN\\nHoldings, Inc., 67 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the context\\nof securities litigation, if a plaintiff pleads facts that show its\\nsuit [is] barred by a statute of limitations, it may plead itself\\nout of court under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.”). In performing\\nour review, we take the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true\\nand give them the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Whirl-\\npool Fin. Corp., 67 F.3d at 608. We may also take judicial notice\\nof matters of public record and consider documents\\nincorporated by reference in the pleadings. Milwaukee\\nPolice Ass’n, 863 F.3d at 640.\\n The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as precluded\\nby Illinois securities law’s three-year statute of limitations. On\\nappeal, we decide whether that limitations period applies,\\nand if so, whether it has expired.\\n A\\n A district court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies\\nthe statute of limitations of the forum state, Klein v. George G.\\nKerasotes Corp., 500 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2007), in this case\\nIllinois.\\n Plaintiffs argue otherwise. Despite bringing securities-\\nbased claims, they contend the Illinois securities laws do not\\ngovern their lawsuit. They argue choice of law provisions\\ncontained in some (but not all) of the Fisker securities\\npurchase agreements they executed required them to pursue\\ntheir claims under Delaware law. Plaintiffs posit that because\\nthey are precluded from any remedies under the Illinois\\nsecurities law, they cannot be subject to its three-year statute\\nof limitations, and thus that their lawsuit must be governed\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 9\\n\\nby Illinois’s five-year statute of limitations for “civil actions\\nnot otherwise provided for.” See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT.\\n5/13-205.\\n Plaintiffs’ argument is ambitious, but not supported by\\nlaw. As an initial matter, choice of law provisions did not bind\\nthe plaintiffs. Nor do choice of law provisions automatically\\nforeclose the application of a forum state’s laws. Rather,\\nchoice of law issues may be waived or forfeited by declining\\nto assert them in litigation. See McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables,\\nInc., 760 F.3d 674, 684 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The choice of law issue\\nmay be waived … if a party fails to assert it.”); see also Vukadi-\\nnovich v. McCarthy, 59 F.3d 58, 62 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that\\nchoice of law is “normally” waivable). Plaintiffs were likewise\\nfree to waive the Delaware choice of law provisions they now\\ninvoke. Further, the Illinois three-year statute of limitations\\napplies to all actions “brought for relief under [the Illinois\\nsecurities laws] or upon or because of any of the matters for\\nwhich relief is granted.” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). Thus,\\n“claims that do not directly invoke the [Illinois securities\\nlaws] may still fall within its statute of limitations,” including\\nDelaware common law claims, like those plaintiffs assert.\\nKlein, 500 F.3d at 671 (citing Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,\\n678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)).\\n In Tregenza, an investor plaintiff raised the same types of\\nclaims as plaintiffs here—common law causes of action for\\nbreach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresenta-\\ntion arising out of the purchase of securities. The Illinois Ap-\\npellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the investor’s claims\\nand held that they triggered the three-year statute of limita-\\ntions because “[they] are reliant ‘upon … matters for which\\n\\f10 No. 18-1815\\n\\nrelief is granted’ by the Securities Law.” Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d\\nat 15 (quoting 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)).\\n We applied the same reasoning in Klein to conclude the\\nIllinois securities laws governed the plaintiff’s claims.\\n500 F.3d at 672–74 (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for\\ncommon law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive\\ndamages as untimely under the Illinois securities laws). 3 In\\nKlein, we held that whether a plaintiff’s claim amounts to an\\naction for relief under the Illinois securities law, or upon or\\nbecause of any of the matters for which relief is granted by the\\nsecurities law, depends on what acts are encompassed within\\nthe securities law. Id. at 672; see also 815 ILL. COMP. STAT.\\n5/13(D); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 824 F. Supp.\\n2d 1164, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (interpreting same Illinois stat-\\nute) (“The Court need not look past the plain language of the\\nstatute to conclude that the ‘matters for which relief is\\ngranted’ refers to the conduct giving rise to a suit rather than\\nthe procedural question of whether an [Illinois securities law]\\nsuit is allowed in a particular case.”)\\n Illinois’s securities laws expressly prohibit the types of\\nmisconduct alleged by plaintiffs and provide remedies there-\\nfor. Plaintiffs claim defendants concealed material infor-\\nmation and made knowingly false statements regarding\\nFisker’s operational and financial conditions in connection\\nwith the sale of Fisker securities. Such conduct is prohibited\\n\\n 3Before 2013, the Illinois securities laws contained a five-year statute\\nof repose, which applied to any “action … brought for relief under this\\nSection or upon or because of any of the matters for which relief is granted\\nby this Section.” See 2013 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 98–174 § 13(D) (West). In\\ndeciding whether the former statute of repose applied to the claims in\\nKlein, we interpreted the same statutes as here.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 11\\n\\nunder Illinois securities laws sections 5/12(F) (prohibiting\\nfraud and deceit in connection with the sale of securities),\\n5/12(G) (prohibiting the sale of securities by means of untrue\\nor misleading statements), and 5/12(I) (prohibiting any\\ndevice, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with the\\nsale of securities). See 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/12. Section 13 of\\nthis statute provides remedies for the conduct prohibited in\\nthese statutes. Likewise, its three-year statute of limitations\\nexpressly applies to their violation. So under Klein, plaintiffs\\nhave pleaded acts encompassed within and governed by the\\nIllinois securities laws, which are governed by its limitation\\nperiod.\\n Plaintiffs contend that rather than Klein, Carpenter v. Exelon\\nEnterprises Co., LLC, 927 N.E.2d 768 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2010),\\ncontrols this case. Carpenter held that § 13 of the Illinois secu-\\nrities laws does not provide a remedy for common law claims\\nfor breach of fiduciary duty brought by sellers of securities.\\nId. at 774–77. Because the plaintiffs-sellers in Carpenter lacked\\na remedy under the Illinois securities laws, the Illinois Appel-\\nlate Court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations did\\nnot govern their claims. Id. at 777. But where Carpenter and\\nKlein separate—whether the Illinois securities laws provide a\\nremedy for stock sellers—is of no value to plaintiffs. The lack\\nof an available remedy in Carpenter was due to the Carpenter\\nplaintiffs’ status as stock sellers. Here, plaintiffs sue as\\npurchasers of Fisker securities, not sellers. The Illinois securi-\\nties laws expressly provide relief to securities purchasers. See\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(A) (specifying that those who par-\\nticipated or aided in selling a security in violation of the Illi-\\nnois securities laws are “joint and severally liable to the pur-\\nchaser,” including purchasers’ attorneys’ fees and expenses).\\n\\f12 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ position also suffers from forum shopping prob-\\nlems because the outcome they propose would reward a\\nstockholder who fails to bring suit in the appropriate state in\\na timely manner. To address this problem, plaintiffs cite\\nFerens v. John Deere Co. to show that forum shopping for a\\nmore favorable statute of limitations is permissible. 494 U.S.\\n516, 531 (1990) (applying Mississippi’s six-year statute of\\nlimitations to Pennsylvania claims after Pennsylvania’s two-\\nyear tort limitations period had expired). But here, unlike in\\nFerens, a more favorable statute of limitations law does not\\nexist. Plaintiffs concede that had they initiated their lawsuit in\\nDelaware under Delaware law, their claims would be subject\\nto a three-year statute of limitations. Likewise, had plaintiffs\\ninitiated their lawsuit in Illinois under Illinois law, the same\\nthree-year limit would be applied. Plaintiffs have offered no\\nauthority to support their contention that by suing in Illinois\\nunder Delaware law, parties get two additional years to sue.\\n Plaintiffs cannot avoid Illinois’s statute of limitations by\\nencasing their common law claims in a Delaware husk.\\nBecause the Illinois securities law’s three-year limitations\\nperiod controls in this case, Illinois’s residual five-year statute\\nof limitations does not apply. See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13-\\n205 (restricting five-year statute of limitations to “civil actions\\nnot otherwise provided for”); see also Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d at\\n15 (holding that the plaintiff’s action “is a cause otherwise\\nprovided for” under the Illinois securities law, and that five-\\nyear limitations period in § 5/13-205 is inapplicable) (internal\\nquotations omitted). The remaining question is whether\\nplaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 13\\n\\n B\\n Actions for relief under the Illinois securities laws must be\\nbrought within three years from the date of a security’s sale.\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). But if the party suing neither\\nknew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have\\nknown of any alleged violation of the Illinois securities law,\\nthe three-year period to sue for Illinois securities law claims\\nbegins to run the earlier of:\\n (1) the date upon which the party bringing the\\n action has actual knowledge of the alleged viola-\\n tion of this Act; or\\n (2) the date upon which the party bringing the\\n action has notice of facts which in the exercise of rea-\\n sonable diligence would lead to actual knowledge of\\n the alleged violation of this Act.\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(1)-(2) (emphases added).\\n Fisker securities were last sold to these plaintiffs in 2012.\\nYet plaintiffs’ amended complaint avers they did not know of\\nfacts concerning the defendants’ alleged violations until after\\nDecember 27, 2013, such that their October 14, 2016, original\\ncomplaint was timely filed. In its final dismissal order,\\nhowever, the district court found that the defendants’ alleged\\nfraud “was presented for the entire world to see no fewer than\\nthree times before October 14, 2013.” Applying an “inquiry\\nnotice” standard, the district court determined that PrivCo’s\\nand Congress’s April 2013 disclosures gave plaintiffs notice\\nof their potential claims. These findings were not rebutted,\\nand the district court concluded it was implausible that plain-\\ntiffs were first notified of facts leading to their claims later\\nthan April 2013.\\n\\f14 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s application of\\ninquiry notice to dismiss their claims. They argue the first\\nclause of 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(2) regarding “notice of\\nfacts” means “actual notice of facts,” not “inquiry notice.”\\nPlaintiffs note that “inquiry notice” does not appear in the\\nstatute. But plaintiffs’ position encounters two problems.\\nFirst, although the text of § 5/13(D)(2) does not include the\\nphrase “inquiry notice,” it also does not include “actual\\nnotice.” Plaintiffs ask us to supplant one omitted term for\\nanother, which leads to the second problem: if we agreed with\\nplaintiffs’ proposed interpretation, what constitutes “actual\\nnotice of facts” would be indistinguishable from “actual\\nknowledge,” the triggering event contained in § 5/13(D)(1).\\nSuch a reading would render § 5/13(D)(1) redundant, which\\nviolates the surplusage canon of statutory construction.\\nANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW 176\\n(2012).\\n In contrast, the inquiry notice standard is consistent with\\n§ 5/13(D) and the cases interpreting this statute. Cf. Tregenza\\nv. Great Am. Commc’ns Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993)\\n(explaining that under “inquiry notice,” a statute of limita-\\ntions “begins to run when the victim of the alleged fraud\\nbecame aware of facts that would have led a reasonable per-\\nson to investigate whether he might have a claim”); Allstate\\nIns. Co., 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1182 (holding § 5/13(D) “appears to\\nbe very close to the California inquiry notice standard,” which\\n“requires only that a party be on notice that an injury was\\n‘caused by wrongdoing’ before the statute begins to run.”).\\n But here, we need not decide which notice standard\\napplies because plaintiffs’ suit is time-barred under the plain\\nlanguage of § 5/13(D). Applying the text of § 5/13(D) to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 15\\n\\ncase, plaintiffs must show they did not have notice of facts\\nthat, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, would lead to\\nactual knowledge of the defendants’ alleged violations on or\\nbefore October 14, 2013. They have failed to do so. Plaintiffs’\\noriginal complaint made more than fleeting references to the\\nApril 2013 PrivCo Report and ensuing congressional\\nhearings. They repeatedly pleaded these publications\\n“brought to light” and “revealed” the facts forming the bases\\nof their lawsuit. The PrivCo Report’s writing was not subtle.\\nIt characterized Fisker as “the most tragic venture capital-\\nbacked debacle in recent history” and alluded to fraud and\\nbreach of fiduciary duties as the cause of Fisker’s “breathtak-\\ning wreckage.” The PrivCo Report and congressional\\nhearings did more than stir up the possibility of a legal action;\\nthey provided plaintiffs a detailed litigation roadmap.\\n Red flags were not limited to disclosures by PrivCo and\\nCongress as provided in their original complaint. According\\nto plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2011 “a scandal\\nerupted concerning Solyndra, another green energy start up\\nwith DOE funding, and Fisker [] became a political issue\\ngiven its similar ties to DOE, becoming the subject of negative\\nstories on major news networks like ABC, CBS, and Fox, as\\nwell as major newspapers.” The amended complaint contin-\\nues that in early January 2012, Fisker executives notified\\ninvestors that “DOE refused to resume funding Fisker.” In\\nFebruary 2012, media reported that Fisker’s “cash crunch”\\nresulted in forced layoffs, in addition to reporting on Fisker’s\\nscaled back sales projections and automobile recalls. The\\nsame month, Fisker also informed its investors that it had\\nbecome “a political football” and that its negative press was\\n“a consequence of [] election year politics.” In August 2012,\\nFisker’s leadership wrote to stockholders explaining that\\n\\f16 No. 18-1815\\n\\nFisker “has been under a media microscope” and was “the\\ntarget of politically motivated PR attacks.”\\n “Scandals,” “negative stories,” “cash crunches,” product\\nrecalls, layoffs, “PR attacks,” nationwide portrayal as a polit-\\nical scapegoat, and cancellation of crucial federal funding—\\nall under the lens of a “media microscope”—are distressing\\nfacts for any stockholder. All of these signals occurred before\\nApril 2013 and were incorporated into plaintiffs’ amended\\ncomplaint.\\n Fisker was a sophisticated and speculative private equity\\ninvestment. Among plaintiffs, the lowest total investment\\nwas over $350,000, and the highest over $7,500,000. Yet even\\nan unsophisticated investor should have realized between\\nlate 2011 (when Fisker was correlated with Solyndra) and\\nApril 2013 (following the release of the PrivCo Report) that\\nsomething was wrong. Even assuming plaintiffs shut them-\\nselves off from media, a simple internet search of “Fisker” to\\ncheck on the status of their investment—as any reasonable\\ninvestor would do—would have revealed these troubling\\nfacts. Plaintiffs counter that defendants were especially\\nsophisticated and employed significant resources to conceal\\nFisker’s problems. The ominous facts plaintiffs detail in their\\namended complaint undercut this assertion. Even if plausible,\\nplaintiffs’ assertion expired once PrivCo and Congress\\npresented Fisker’s flaws to the public. Defendants could no\\nlonger conceal wrongdoings because, as plaintiffs expressly\\nconcede, PrivCo and Congress “revealed” and “brought to\\nlight” such wrongdoings as early as April 2013.\\n Finally, plaintiffs contend the district court improperly\\nconstrued allegations in their superseded original complaint\\nas judicial admissions. See 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 17\\n\\nF.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 2002) (“When a party has amended a\\npleading, allegations and statements in earlier pleadings are\\nnot considered judicial admissions.”). Plaintiffs insist that\\nallegations in a superseded complaint—here, references to the\\nPrivCo Report and congressional hearings—should be\\nignored.\\n An amended pleading does not operate as a judicial tabula\\nrasa. “Under some circumstances, a party may offer earlier\\nversions of its opponent's pleadings as evidence of the facts\\ntherein.” Id. In response, “the amending party may offer evi-\\ndence to rebut its superseded allegations.” Id. Consistent with\\nthis process, the district court granted plaintiffs leave to\\namend to rebut facts that they pleaded in their original com-\\nplaint showing their awareness of the defendants’ alleged\\nsecurities violations more than three years before filing. The\\ncourt provided plaintiffs the opportunity to expressly contra-\\ndict the court’s finding about when they learned of facts that\\nwould lead them to their claims. Rather than contradict those\\nfacts, plaintiffs simply deleted any references to them. A\\ndistrict court is not required to ignore its prior decision, or its\\nfindings supporting a dismissal and grant of leave to amend,\\nwhere, as here, the findings are based upon undisputed\\npublic information plaintiffs themselves brought before the\\ndistrict court.\\n A district court may judicially notice a fact that is not sub-\\nject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) “is generally known\\nwithin the trial court's territorial jurisdiction;” or (2) “can be\\naccurately and readily determined from sources whose accu-\\nracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R. EVID. 201(b);\\nsee also General Electric Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp.,\\n128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding same). Here, the\\n\\f18 No. 18-1815\\n\\ndistrict court considered the original complaint, as well as its\\n2017 opinion inviting plaintiffs to rebut their allegations of\\nnotice triggering the Illinois securities limitations period. “[I]f\\nthe finding taken from the prior proceeding is ‘not subject to\\nreasonable dispute,’ then the court has satisfied the eviden-\\ntiary criteria for judicial notice.” General Elec. Capital Corp., 128\\nF.3d at 1082; see also Watkins v. United States, 854 F.3d 947, 950\\n(7th Cir. 2017) (“Absent a claim that there is a plausible, good-\\nfaith basis to challenge the legitimacy of [a prior complaint],”\\nthe court is entitled to take judicial notice of a complaint and\\nits contents). That the PrivCo report exists, the Congressional\\nhearings transpired, and plaintiffs pleaded both facts in their\\noriginal complaint is beyond “reasonable dispute.” Accord-\\ningly, the district court permissibly considered these findings\\nin its second and final dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.\\n III\\n Plaintiffs’ case concerns matters for which the Illinois\\nsecurities laws grant relief, and therefore falls within its three-\\nyear statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims against the\\ndefendants accrued no later than April 2013, but they filed\\ntheir complaint in October 2016. Because plaintiffs failed to\\nbring this action within three years from the date their claims\\naccrued, their lawsuit was untimely filed and appropriately\\ndismissed.\\n AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356541/\", \"author_raw\": \"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579288/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: ORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Keith DAUBENSPECK, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1815\nORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n v.\n\nKEITH DAUBENSPECK, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:16-cv-10849 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\nBRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Hype and reality can be at odds.\nThis contrast arises often in postmortems on once-fashiona-\nble, now-failed investment securities. Hype can raise inves-\ntors’ hopes and, in turn, capital contributions. But when hype\naccelerates an investment’s market value beyond its actual\nworth, a financial bubble is formed.\n\f2 No. 18-1815\n\n Fisker Automotive, Inc. was such a bubble, bursting in\n2013. Plaintiffs, all purchasers of Fisker securities between\n2009 and 2012, assert various claims against defendants, each\nof whom played roles in Fisker’s early-stage financing, for\nallegedly misleading investors regarding Fisker’s intrinsic\nvalue and imminent collapse. 1 Illinois law provides remedies\nwhen securities are sold by means of deceptive and fraudu-\nlent practices. But like any civil action, such claims must be\ntimely filed. Our review does not explore the cause of or the\ndefendants’ alleged roles in Fisker’s failure. Rather, we decide\nwhether plaintiffs’ claims fall within the Illinois securities\nlaws, and if so whether their claims are time-barred by\nIllinois’s three-year statute of limitations for securities-based\nclaims.\n I\n A\n In 2008, Fisker, a manufacturer of luxury hybrid electric\ncars, began attracting substantial financing as part of a trend\nin venture capital investments toward green energy technol-\nogy start-ups. Investor enthusiasm was spurred by a $528.7\nmillion loan to Fisker from the U.S. Department of Energy,\nwhich offered direct financial support to manufacturers of\nclean energy vehicles and components. Under the loan’s\nterms, the Energy Department advanced Fisker $192 million.\n\n\n 1Plaintiffs-appellants are Orgone Capital III, LLC, David Burnidge,\nLincolnshire Fisker, LLC, Kenneth A. Steele, Jr., and Robert F. Steel, and\ndefendants-appellees are Fisker director Keith Daubenspeck, Fisker’s\nventure capital patron Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Kleiner Perkins’s\nmanaging partners Ray Lane and John Doerr, and Fisker’s lead invest-\nment banker Peter McDonnell.\n\fNo. 18-1815 3\n\nThe venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a\ndefendant here and a controlling shareholder of Fisker,\nassisted with negotiating and securing the loan to Fisker.\nPlaintiffs characterize Kleiner Perkins as “politically-con-\nnected” and a “pioneering titan” of Silicon Valley’s venture\ncapital industry, known for its “hugely successful early back-\ning of companies.”\n Support from the federal government and Kleiner Perkins\nwere not the only factors sparking investor interest. Celebri-\nties including tech-industry rainmakers and A-list movie\nstars invested in Fisker’s future. Media outlets from Wall\nStreet to Hollywood reported on these luminaries’ investment\nin and association with Fisker. Further fueling the excitement\nwas Fisker’s public competition with another emerging\nplayer in the electric vehicle market, Tesla, Inc.\n In 2009, before sales began on its first generation of vehi-\ncles, Fisker announced that beginning in 2012 or 2013 its\nsecond generation of vehicles would be built in Delaware.\nDelaware agreed to chip in $21.5 million in state subsidies and\nVice President Joe Biden and Delaware Governor Jack\nMarkell participated in Fisker’s media unveiling of this\neconomic collaboration. Riding this wave of publicity and\ncontributions, Fisker secured funding from additional\nventure capital firms and high net worth investors. These\ninvestors included the five plaintiffs at bar, who collectively\npurchased over $10 million in Fisker securities. By 2011, insti-\ntutional and individual investors had poured $1.1 billion into\nFisker, betting on its revenue potential and sustainability\nvalues.\n Fisker’s rise was rapid and highly publicized. So was its\nfall. In late 2011, Fisker began selling its flagship automobile.\n\f4 No. 18-1815\n\nBy August 2012, it stopped all manufacturing operations to\npreserve cash, and in April 2013, Fisker laid off 75% of its re-\nmaining workforce. That same month, the U.S. Government\nseized $21 million in cash from Fisker to fulfill its first loan\npayment. In September 2013, the Energy Department put\nFisker’s remaining unpaid loan amount (approximately $168\nmillion) out to bid at a public auction. In November 2013,\nFisker filed for bankruptcy protection. The bubble had burst,\nand lawsuits followed.\n B\n On October 14, 2016, these plaintiffs filed a class action\ncomplaint against the defendants alleging fraud, fraudulent\nconcealment of material information, breach of fiduciary\nduty, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with\ntheir purchases of Fisker securities. In the complaint, plain-\ntiffs referenced a report released on April 17, 2013, by a\nprivate research firm, PrivCo, entitled “FISKER\nAUTOMOTIVE’S ROAD TO RUIN: How a ‘Billion-Dollar\nStartup Became a Billion-Dollar Disaster’.” A press release\naccompanying this PrivCo Report opined Fisker may go\ndown as “the most tragic venture capital-backed debacle in\nrecent history” due to “[t]he sheer scale of investment capital\nand government loan money.” The PrivCo Report claimed\nthis money and capital was “squandered so rapidly and with\nso little to show for it that the wreckage is breathtaking.”\nAccording to plaintiffs, the PrivCo Report was supported by\nover 11,000 pages of documents exposing Fisker’s imminent\nbankruptcy and malfeasant management. The PrivCo Report\nalso highlighted production and financial data plaintiffs claim\ndefendants concealed.\n\fNo. 18-1815 5\n\n Plaintiffs’ original complaint also describes several\ncongressional hearings held in April 2013, one week after the\nPrivCo Report was published. Those hearings included testi-\nmony from both government and Fisker officials as part of a\ncongressional investigation of Fisker’s impending failure and\nthe loss of $192 million in taxpayer funds.\n The complaint details how the PrivCo Report and congres-\nsional hearings “brought to light” and “revealed the defend-\nants’ alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiffs pleaded “[t]he investi-\ngations by PrivCo and Congress revealed fraud and breach of\nfiduciary duties by, among others, [the defendants], in\nconnection with [d]efendants’ scheme to induce [p]laintiffs\nand the Class to purchase Fisker Automotive Securities while\nconcealing from them material adverse information.” Plain-\ntiffs also alleged that confidential documents disclosed by\nPrivCo and Congress “revealed” the defendants “knew, but\nfailed to disclose to plaintiffs and the Class, material infor-\nmation” concerning Fisker’s production delays. Quoting the\nPrivCo Report, plaintiffs claim defendants “kept Fisker’s\ntroubles secret” and concealed Fisker’s cash crisis and\nmismanagement while attracting new investors. Plaintiffs\nalleged that defendants secured over $800 million through\nfraud by disseminating materially false and misleading infor-\nmation to rescue Kleiner Perkins from its “bad bet” on Fisker.\n Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as\nbarred by Illinois’s three-year statute of limitations, 815 ILL.\nCOMP. STAT. 5/13(D), for securities-based claims. Defendants\nargued the notices provided by PrivCo and Congress\noccurred in April 2013, but plaintiffs waited more than three\nyears to file their complaint in October 2016. The district court\n\f6 No. 18-1815\n\nagreed and granted defendants’ motion based upon plain-\ntiffs’ “straightforward factual disclosures” regarding the\nPrivCo Report and at the congressional hearings. To the\ndistrict court, these disclosures demonstrated plaintiffs must\nat a minimum have known facts that, in the exercise of\nreasonable diligence, would have led to actual knowledge of\ntheir claims.\n Although the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint\nas untimely, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend if they\nwished “to expressly contradict the court’s conclusion about\nthe dates that they learned of the facts that would lead them\nto their claims.”\n C\n Plaintiffs accepted the district court’s invitation and\namended their complaint in three ways. First, they deleted all\nreferences to the PrivCo Report and congressional hearings.\nSecond, they asserted Delaware rather than Illinois law\ncontrols this case under choice of law provisions within\ncertain Fisker securities purchase agreements. Third, they\nclaimed they first learned of the defendants’ purported\nwrongdoing on December 27, 2013, after an action was\nbrought in Delaware by separate investor plaintiffs against\nsome of the same defendants here. 2\n Defendants moved again for dismissal and judgment on\nthe pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\nand (c). They argued plaintiffs’ amended complaint suffers\nfrom the same infirmities as the original and that the lawsuit\n\n 2 The Delaware plaintiffs raised the same core allegations as the plain-\n\ntiffs here, relied on the same information derived from the PrivCo Report\nand congressional hearings, and were represented by the same counsel.\n\fNo. 18-1815 7\n\nremains time-barred. The district court agreed, and\nconcluded that plaintiffs’ claims came under Illinois law,\nregardless of plaintiffs’ contention that Delaware law should\napply.\n The district court also ruled that plaintiffs’ amended\ncomplaint failed to cure the fundamental problem with their\noriginal complaint, which affirmatively pleaded plaintiffs\nhad notice of their claims in April 2013. After the first dismis-\nsal, the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend to “expressly\ncontradict” its finding that plaintiffs learned of facts in April\n2013 that would lead them to their claims. But rather than\nrebut the court’s finding, plaintiffs just deleted all references\nto the PrivCo Report or congressional hearings from their\namended complaint. Because this information was not contra-\ndicted in the amended complaint, the court reaffirmed its\nprevious conclusion that Illinois’s three-year statute of limita-\ntions for securities law claims barred plaintiffs’ action, and\ndismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.\n II\n We review de novo a district court’s order granting a Rule\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.\nIndep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934\n(7th Cir. 2012). We similarly review de novo a district court’s\ngrant of judgment under Rule 12(c). Milwaukee Police Ass'n v.\nFlynn, 863 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Brooks v. Ross,\n578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that practical effect of\naddressing a statute of limitations defense in Rule 12(c)\nmotion is same as addressing it in Rule 12(b)(6) motion).\n Where a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish a\nstatute of limitations defense, the district court may dismiss\n\f8 No. 18-1815\n\nthe complaint on that ground. O'Gorman v. City of Chicago,\n777 F.3d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 2015); Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. GN\nHoldings, Inc., 67 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the context\nof securities litigation, if a plaintiff pleads facts that show its\nsuit [is] barred by a statute of limitations, it may plead itself\nout of court under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.”). In performing\nour review, we take the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true\nand give them the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Whirl-\npool Fin. Corp., 67 F.3d at 608. We may also take judicial notice\nof matters of public record and consider documents\nincorporated by reference in the pleadings. Milwaukee\nPolice Ass’n, 863 F.3d at 640.\n The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as precluded\nby Illinois securities law’s three-year statute of limitations. On\nappeal, we decide whether that limitations period applies,\nand if so, whether it has expired.\n A\n A district court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies\nthe statute of limitations of the forum state, Klein v. George G.\nKerasotes Corp., 500 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2007), in this case\nIllinois.\n Plaintiffs argue otherwise. Despite bringing securities-\nbased claims, they contend the Illinois securities laws do not\ngovern their lawsuit. They argue choice of law provisions\ncontained in some (but not all) of the Fisker securities\npurchase agreements they executed required them to pursue\ntheir claims under Delaware law. Plaintiffs posit that because\nthey are precluded from any remedies under the Illinois\nsecurities law, they cannot be subject to its three-year statute\nof limitations, and thus that their lawsuit must be governed\n\fNo. 18-1815 9\n\nby Illinois’s five-year statute of limitations for “civil actions\nnot otherwise provided for.” See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT.\n5/13-205.\n Plaintiffs’ argument is ambitious, but not supported by\nlaw. As an initial matter, choice of law provisions did not bind\nthe plaintiffs. Nor do choice of law provisions automatically\nforeclose the application of a forum state’s laws. Rather,\nchoice of law issues may be waived or forfeited by declining\nto assert them in litigation. See McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables,\nInc., 760 F.3d 674, 684 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The choice of law issue\nmay be waived … if a party fails to assert it.”); see also Vukadi-\nnovich v. McCarthy, 59 F.3d 58, 62 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that\nchoice of law is “normally” waivable). Plaintiffs were likewise\nfree to waive the Delaware choice of law provisions they now\ninvoke. Further, the Illinois three-year statute of limitations\napplies to all actions “brought for relief under [the Illinois\nsecurities laws] or upon or because of any of the matters for\nwhich relief is granted.” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). Thus,\n“claims that do not directly invoke the [Illinois securities\nlaws] may still fall within its statute of limitations,” including\nDelaware common law claims, like those plaintiffs assert.\nKlein, 500 F.3d at 671 (citing Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,\n678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)).\n In Tregenza, an investor plaintiff raised the same types of\nclaims as plaintiffs here—common law causes of action for\nbreach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresenta-\ntion arising out of the purchase of securities. The Illinois Ap-\npellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the investor’s claims\nand held that they triggered the three-year statute of limita-\ntions because “[they] are reliant ‘upon … matters for which\n\f10 No. 18-1815\n\nrelief is granted’ by the Securities Law.” Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d\nat 15 (quoting 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)).\n We applied the same reasoning in Klein to conclude the\nIllinois securities laws governed the plaintiff’s claims.\n500 F.3d at 672–74 (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for\ncommon law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive\ndamages as untimely under the Illinois securities laws). 3 In\nKlein, we held that whether a plaintiff’s claim amounts to an\naction for relief under the Illinois securities law, or upon or\nbecause of any of the matters for which relief is granted by the\nsecurities law, depends on what acts are encompassed within\nthe securities law. Id. at 672; see also 815 ILL. COMP. STAT.\n5/13(D); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 824 F. Supp.\n2d 1164, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (interpreting same Illinois stat-\nute) (“The Court need not look past the plain language of the\nstatute to conclude that the ‘matters for which relief is\ngranted’ refers to the conduct giving rise to a suit rather than\nthe procedural question of whether an [Illinois securities law]\nsuit is allowed in a particular case.”)\n Illinois’s securities laws expressly prohibit the types of\nmisconduct alleged by plaintiffs and provide remedies there-\nfor. Plaintiffs claim defendants concealed material infor-\nmation and made knowingly false statements regarding\nFisker’s operational and financial conditions in connection\nwith the sale of Fisker securities. Such conduct is prohibited\n\n 3Before 2013, the Illinois securities laws contained a five-year statute\nof repose, which applied to any “action … brought for relief under this\nSection or upon or because of any of the matters for which relief is granted\nby this Section.” See 2013 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 98–174 § 13(D) (West). In\ndeciding whether the former statute of repose applied to the claims in\nKlein, we interpreted the same statutes as here.\n\fNo. 18-1815 11\n\nunder Illinois securities laws sections 5/12(F) (prohibiting\nfraud and deceit in connection with the sale of securities),\n5/12(G) (prohibiting the sale of securities by means of untrue\nor misleading statements), and 5/12(I) (prohibiting any\ndevice, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with the\nsale of securities). See 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/12. Section 13 of\nthis statute provides remedies for the conduct prohibited in\nthese statutes. Likewise, its three-year statute of limitations\nexpressly applies to their violation. So under Klein, plaintiffs\nhave pleaded acts encompassed within and governed by the\nIllinois securities laws, which are governed by its limitation\nperiod.\n Plaintiffs contend that rather than Klein, Carpenter v. Exelon\nEnterprises Co., LLC, 927 N.E.2d 768 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2010),\ncontrols this case. Carpenter held that § 13 of the Illinois secu-\nrities laws does not provide a remedy for common law claims\nfor breach of fiduciary duty brought by sellers of securities.\nId. at 774–77. Because the plaintiffs-sellers in Carpenter lacked\na remedy under the Illinois securities laws, the Illinois Appel-\nlate Court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations did\nnot govern their claims. Id. at 777. But where Carpenter and\nKlein separate—whether the Illinois securities laws provide a\nremedy for stock sellers—is of no value to plaintiffs. The lack\nof an available remedy in Carpenter was due to the Carpenter\nplaintiffs’ status as stock sellers. Here, plaintiffs sue as\npurchasers of Fisker securities, not sellers. The Illinois securi-\nties laws expressly provide relief to securities purchasers. See\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(A) (specifying that those who par-\nticipated or aided in selling a security in violation of the Illi-\nnois securities laws are “joint and severally liable to the pur-\nchaser,” including purchasers’ attorneys’ fees and expenses).\n\f12 No. 18-1815\n\n Plaintiffs’ position also suffers from forum shopping prob-\nlems because the outcome they propose would reward a\nstockholder who fails to bring suit in the appropriate state in\na timely manner. To address this problem, plaintiffs cite\nFerens v. John Deere Co. to show that forum shopping for a\nmore favorable statute of limitations is permissible. 494 U.S.\n516, 531 (1990) (applying Mississippi’s six-year statute of\nlimitations to Pennsylvania claims after Pennsylvania’s two-\nyear tort limitations period had expired). But here, unlike in\nFerens, a more favorable statute of limitations law does not\nexist. Plaintiffs concede that had they initiated their lawsuit in\nDelaware under Delaware law, their claims would be subject\nto a three-year statute of limitations. Likewise, had plaintiffs\ninitiated their lawsuit in Illinois under Illinois law, the same\nthree-year limit would be applied. Plaintiffs have offered no\nauthority to support their contention that by suing in Illinois\nunder Delaware law, parties get two additional years to sue.\n Plaintiffs cannot avoid Illinois’s statute of limitations by\nencasing their common law claims in a Delaware husk.\nBecause the Illinois securities law’s three-year limitations\nperiod controls in this case, Illinois’s residual five-year statute\nof limitations does not apply. See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13-\n205 (restricting five-year statute of limitations to “civil actions\nnot otherwise provided for”); see also Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d at\n15 (holding that the plaintiff’s action “is a cause otherwise\nprovided for” under the Illinois securities law, and that five-\nyear limitations period in § 5/13-205 is inapplicable) (internal\nquotations omitted). The remaining question is whether\nplaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed.\n\fNo. 18-1815 13\n\n B\n Actions for relief under the Illinois securities laws must be\nbrought within three years from the date of a security’s sale.\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). But if the party suing neither\nknew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have\nknown of any alleged violation of the Illinois securities law,\nthe three-year period to sue for Illinois securities law claims\nbegins to run the earlier of:\n (1) the date upon which the party bringing the\n action has actual knowledge of the alleged viola-\n tion of this Act; or\n (2) the date upon which the party bringing the\n action has notice of facts which in the exercise of rea-\n sonable diligence would lead to actual knowledge of\n the alleged violation of this Act.\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(1)-(2) (emphases added).\n Fisker securities were last sold to these plaintiffs in 2012.\nYet plaintiffs’ amended complaint avers they did not know of\nfacts concerning the defendants’ alleged violations until after\nDecember 27, 2013, such that their October 14, 2016, original\ncomplaint was timely filed. In its final dismissal order,\nhowever, the district court found that the defendants’ alleged\nfraud “was presented for the entire world to see no fewer than\nthree times before October 14, 2013.” Applying an “inquiry\nnotice” standard, the district court determined that PrivCo’s\nand Congress’s April 2013 disclosures gave plaintiffs notice\nof their potential claims. These findings were not rebutted,\nand the district court concluded it was implausible that plain-\ntiffs were first notified of facts leading to their claims later\nthan April 2013.\n\f14 No. 18-1815\n\n Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s application of\ninquiry notice to dismiss their claims. They argue the first\nclause of 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(2) regarding “notice of\nfacts” means “actual notice of facts,” not “inquiry notice.”\nPlaintiffs note that “inquiry notice” does not appear in the\nstatute. But plaintiffs’ position encounters two problems.\nFirst, although the text of § 5/13(D)(2) does not include the\nphrase “inquiry notice,” it also does not include “actual\nnotice.” Plaintiffs ask us to supplant one omitted term for\nanother, which leads to the second problem: if we agreed with\nplaintiffs’ proposed interpretation, what constitutes “actual\nnotice of facts” would be indistinguishable from “actual\nknowledge,” the triggering event contained in § 5/13(D)(1).\nSuch a reading would render § 5/13(D)(1) redundant, which\nviolates the surplusage canon of statutory construction.\nANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW 176\n(2012).\n In contrast, the inquiry notice standard is consistent with\n§ 5/13(D) and the cases interpreting this statute. Cf. Tregenza\nv. Great Am. Commc’ns Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993)\n(explaining that under “inquiry notice,” a statute of limita-\ntions “begins to run when the victim of the alleged fraud\nbecame aware of facts that would have led a reasonable per-\nson to investigate whether he might have a claim”); Allstate\nIns. Co., 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1182 (holding § 5/13(D) “appears to\nbe very close to the California inquiry notice standard,” which\n“requires only that a party be on notice that an injury was\n‘caused by wrongdoing’ before the statute begins to run.”).\n But here, we need not decide which notice standard\napplies because plaintiffs’ suit is time-barred under the plain\nlanguage of § 5/13(D). Applying the text of § 5/13(D) to this\n\fNo. 18-1815 15\n\ncase, plaintiffs must show they did not have notice of facts\nthat, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, would lead to\nactual knowledge of the defendants’ alleged violations on or\nbefore October 14, 2013. They have failed to do so. Plaintiffs’\noriginal complaint made more than fleeting references to the\nApril 2013 PrivCo Report and ensuing congressional\nhearings. They repeatedly pleaded these publications\n“brought to light” and “revealed” the facts forming the bases\nof their lawsuit. The PrivCo Report’s writing was not subtle.\nIt characterized Fisker as “the most tragic venture capital-\nbacked debacle in recent history” and alluded to fraud and\nbreach of fiduciary duties as the cause of Fisker’s “breathtak-\ning wreckage.” The PrivCo Report and congressional\nhearings did more than stir up the possibility of a legal action;\nthey provided plaintiffs a detailed litigation roadmap.\n Red flags were not limited to disclosures by PrivCo and\nCongress as provided in their original complaint. According\nto plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2011 “a scandal\nerupted concerning Solyndra, another green energy start up\nwith DOE funding, and Fisker [] became a political issue\ngiven its similar ties to DOE, becoming the subject of negative\nstories on major news networks like ABC, CBS, and Fox, as\nwell as major newspapers.” The amended complaint contin-\nues that in early January 2012, Fisker executives notified\ninvestors that “DOE refused to resume funding Fisker.” In\nFebruary 2012, media reported that Fisker’s “cash crunch”\nresulted in forced layoffs, in addition to reporting on Fisker’s\nscaled back sales projections and automobile recalls. The\nsame month, Fisker also informed its investors that it had\nbecome “a political football” and that its negative press was\n“a consequence of [] election year politics.” In August 2012,\nFisker’s leadership wrote to stockholders explaining that\n\f16 No. 18-1815\n\nFisker “has been under a media microscope” and was “the\ntarget of politically motivated PR attacks.”\n “Scandals,” “negative stories,” “cash crunches,” product\nrecalls, layoffs, “PR attacks,” nationwide portrayal as a polit-\nical scapegoat, and cancellation of crucial federal funding—\nall under the lens of a “media microscope”—are distressing\nfacts for any stockholder. All of these signals occurred before\nApril 2013 and were incorporated into plaintiffs’ amended\ncomplaint.\n Fisker was a sophisticated and speculative private equity\ninvestment. Among plaintiffs, the lowest total investment\nwas over $350,000, and the highest over $7,500,000. Yet even\nan unsophisticated investor should have realized between\nlate 2011 (when Fisker was correlated with Solyndra) and\nApril 2013 (following the release of the PrivCo Report) that\nsomething was wrong. Even assuming plaintiffs shut them-\nselves off from media, a simple internet search of “Fisker” to\ncheck on the status of their investment—as any reasonable\ninvestor would do—would have revealed these troubling\nfacts. Plaintiffs counter that defendants were especially\nsophisticated and employed significant resources to conceal\nFisker’s problems. The ominous facts plaintiffs detail in their\namended complaint undercut this assertion. Even if plausible,\nplaintiffs’ assertion expired once PrivCo and Congress\npresented Fisker’s flaws to the public. Defendants could no\nlonger conceal wrongdoings because, as plaintiffs expressly\nconcede, PrivCo and Congress “revealed” and “brought to\nlight” such wrongdoings as early as April 2013.\n Finally, plaintiffs contend the district court improperly\nconstrued allegations in their superseded original complaint\nas judicial admissions. See 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300\n\fNo. 18-1815 17\n\nF.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 2002) (“When a party has amended a\npleading, allegations and statements in earlier pleadings are\nnot considered judicial admissions.”). Plaintiffs insist that\nallegations in a superseded complaint—here, references to the\nPrivCo Report and congressional hearings—should be\nignored.\n An amended pleading does not operate as a judicial tabula\nrasa. “Under some circumstances, a party may offer earlier\nversions of its opponent's pleadings as evidence of the facts\ntherein.” Id. In response, “the amending party may offer evi-\ndence to rebut its superseded allegations.” Id. Consistent with\nthis process, the district court granted plaintiffs leave to\namend to rebut facts that they pleaded in their original com-\nplaint showing their awareness of the defendants’ alleged\nsecurities violations more than three years before filing. The\ncourt provided plaintiffs the opportunity to expressly contra-\ndict the court’s finding about when they learned of facts that\nwould lead them to their claims. Rather than contradict those\nfacts, plaintiffs simply deleted any references to them. A\ndistrict court is not required to ignore its prior decision, or its\nfindings supporting a dismissal and grant of leave to amend,\nwhere, as here, the findings are based upon undisputed\npublic information plaintiffs themselves brought before the\ndistrict court.\n A district court may judicially notice a fact that is not sub-\nject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) “is generally known\nwithin the trial court's territorial jurisdiction;” or (2) “can be\naccurately and readily determined from sources whose accu-\nracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R. EVID. 201(b);\nsee also General Electric Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp.,\n128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding same). Here, the\n\f18 No. 18-1815\n\ndistrict court considered the original complaint, as well as its\n2017 opinion inviting plaintiffs to rebut their allegations of\nnotice triggering the Illinois securities limitations period. “[I]f\nthe finding taken from the prior proceeding is ‘not subject to\nreasonable dispute,’ then the court has satisfied the eviden-\ntiary criteria for judicial notice.” General Elec. Capital Corp., 128\nF.3d at 1082; see also Watkins v. United States, 854 F.3d 947, 950\n(7th Cir. 2017) (“Absent a claim that there is a plausible, good-\nfaith basis to challenge the legitimacy of [a prior complaint],”\nthe court is entitled to take judicial notice of a complaint and\nits contents). That the PrivCo report exists, the Congressional\nhearings transpired, and plaintiffs pleaded both facts in their\noriginal complaint is beyond “reasonable dispute.” Accord-\ningly, the district court permissibly considered these findings\nin its second and final dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.\n III\n Plaintiffs’ case concerns matters for which the Illinois\nsecurities laws grant relief, and therefore falls within its three-\nyear statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims against the\ndefendants accrued no later than April 2013, but they filed\ntheir complaint in October 2016. Because plaintiffs failed to\nbring this action within three years from the date their claims\naccrued, their lawsuit was untimely filed and appropriately\ndismissed.\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: ORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Keith DAUBENSPECK, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1815\\nORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nKEITH DAUBENSPECK, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:16-cv-10849 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\\nBRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Hype and reality can be at odds.\\nThis contrast arises often in postmortems on once-fashiona-\\nble, now-failed investment securities. Hype can raise inves-\\ntors’ hopes and, in turn, capital contributions. But when hype\\naccelerates an investment’s market value beyond its actual\\nworth, a financial bubble is formed.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Fisker Automotive, Inc. was such a bubble, bursting in\\n2013. Plaintiffs, all purchasers of Fisker securities between\\n2009 and 2012, assert various claims against defendants, each\\nof whom played roles in Fisker’s early-stage financing, for\\nallegedly misleading investors regarding Fisker’s intrinsic\\nvalue and imminent collapse. 1 Illinois law provides remedies\\nwhen securities are sold by means of deceptive and fraudu-\\nlent practices. But like any civil action, such claims must be\\ntimely filed. Our review does not explore the cause of or the\\ndefendants’ alleged roles in Fisker’s failure. Rather, we decide\\nwhether plaintiffs’ claims fall within the Illinois securities\\nlaws, and if so whether their claims are time-barred by\\nIllinois’s three-year statute of limitations for securities-based\\nclaims.\\n I\\n A\\n In 2008, Fisker, a manufacturer of luxury hybrid electric\\ncars, began attracting substantial financing as part of a trend\\nin venture capital investments toward green energy technol-\\nogy start-ups. Investor enthusiasm was spurred by a $528.7\\nmillion loan to Fisker from the U.S. Department of Energy,\\nwhich offered direct financial support to manufacturers of\\nclean energy vehicles and components. Under the loan’s\\nterms, the Energy Department advanced Fisker $192 million.\\n\\n\\n 1Plaintiffs-appellants are Orgone Capital III, LLC, David Burnidge,\\nLincolnshire Fisker, LLC, Kenneth A. Steele, Jr., and Robert F. Steel, and\\ndefendants-appellees are Fisker director Keith Daubenspeck, Fisker’s\\nventure capital patron Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Kleiner Perkins’s\\nmanaging partners Ray Lane and John Doerr, and Fisker’s lead invest-\\nment banker Peter McDonnell.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 3\\n\\nThe venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a\\ndefendant here and a controlling shareholder of Fisker,\\nassisted with negotiating and securing the loan to Fisker.\\nPlaintiffs characterize Kleiner Perkins as “politically-con-\\nnected” and a “pioneering titan” of Silicon Valley’s venture\\ncapital industry, known for its “hugely successful early back-\\ning of companies.”\\n Support from the federal government and Kleiner Perkins\\nwere not the only factors sparking investor interest. Celebri-\\nties including tech-industry rainmakers and A-list movie\\nstars invested in Fisker’s future. Media outlets from Wall\\nStreet to Hollywood reported on these luminaries’ investment\\nin and association with Fisker. Further fueling the excitement\\nwas Fisker’s public competition with another emerging\\nplayer in the electric vehicle market, Tesla, Inc.\\n In 2009, before sales began on its first generation of vehi-\\ncles, Fisker announced that beginning in 2012 or 2013 its\\nsecond generation of vehicles would be built in Delaware.\\nDelaware agreed to chip in $21.5 million in state subsidies and\\nVice President Joe Biden and Delaware Governor Jack\\nMarkell participated in Fisker’s media unveiling of this\\neconomic collaboration. Riding this wave of publicity and\\ncontributions, Fisker secured funding from additional\\nventure capital firms and high net worth investors. These\\ninvestors included the five plaintiffs at bar, who collectively\\npurchased over $10 million in Fisker securities. By 2011, insti-\\ntutional and individual investors had poured $1.1 billion into\\nFisker, betting on its revenue potential and sustainability\\nvalues.\\n Fisker’s rise was rapid and highly publicized. So was its\\nfall. In late 2011, Fisker began selling its flagship automobile.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1815\\n\\nBy August 2012, it stopped all manufacturing operations to\\npreserve cash, and in April 2013, Fisker laid off 75% of its re-\\nmaining workforce. That same month, the U.S. Government\\nseized $21 million in cash from Fisker to fulfill its first loan\\npayment. In September 2013, the Energy Department put\\nFisker’s remaining unpaid loan amount (approximately $168\\nmillion) out to bid at a public auction. In November 2013,\\nFisker filed for bankruptcy protection. The bubble had burst,\\nand lawsuits followed.\\n B\\n On October 14, 2016, these plaintiffs filed a class action\\ncomplaint against the defendants alleging fraud, fraudulent\\nconcealment of material information, breach of fiduciary\\nduty, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with\\ntheir purchases of Fisker securities. In the complaint, plain-\\ntiffs referenced a report released on April 17, 2013, by a\\nprivate research firm, PrivCo, entitled “FISKER\\nAUTOMOTIVE’S ROAD TO RUIN: How a ‘Billion-Dollar\\nStartup Became a Billion-Dollar Disaster’.” A press release\\naccompanying this PrivCo Report opined Fisker may go\\ndown as “the most tragic venture capital-backed debacle in\\nrecent history” due to “[t]he sheer scale of investment capital\\nand government loan money.” The PrivCo Report claimed\\nthis money and capital was “squandered so rapidly and with\\nso little to show for it that the wreckage is breathtaking.”\\nAccording to plaintiffs, the PrivCo Report was supported by\\nover 11,000 pages of documents exposing Fisker’s imminent\\nbankruptcy and malfeasant management. The PrivCo Report\\nalso highlighted production and financial data plaintiffs claim\\ndefendants concealed.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 5\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ original complaint also describes several\\ncongressional hearings held in April 2013, one week after the\\nPrivCo Report was published. Those hearings included testi-\\nmony from both government and Fisker officials as part of a\\ncongressional investigation of Fisker’s impending failure and\\nthe loss of $192 million in taxpayer funds.\\n The complaint details how the PrivCo Report and congres-\\nsional hearings “brought to light” and “revealed the defend-\\nants’ alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiffs pleaded “[t]he investi-\\ngations by PrivCo and Congress revealed fraud and breach of\\nfiduciary duties by, among others, [the defendants], in\\nconnection with [d]efendants’ scheme to induce [p]laintiffs\\nand the Class to purchase Fisker Automotive Securities while\\nconcealing from them material adverse information.” Plain-\\ntiffs also alleged that confidential documents disclosed by\\nPrivCo and Congress “revealed” the defendants “knew, but\\nfailed to disclose to plaintiffs and the Class, material infor-\\nmation” concerning Fisker’s production delays. Quoting the\\nPrivCo Report, plaintiffs claim defendants “kept Fisker’s\\ntroubles secret” and concealed Fisker’s cash crisis and\\nmismanagement while attracting new investors. Plaintiffs\\nalleged that defendants secured over $800 million through\\nfraud by disseminating materially false and misleading infor-\\nmation to rescue Kleiner Perkins from its “bad bet” on Fisker.\\n Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as\\nbarred by Illinois’s three-year statute of limitations, 815 ILL.\\nCOMP. STAT. 5/13(D), for securities-based claims. Defendants\\nargued the notices provided by PrivCo and Congress\\noccurred in April 2013, but plaintiffs waited more than three\\nyears to file their complaint in October 2016. The district court\\n\\f6 No. 18-1815\\n\\nagreed and granted defendants’ motion based upon plain-\\ntiffs’ “straightforward factual disclosures” regarding the\\nPrivCo Report and at the congressional hearings. To the\\ndistrict court, these disclosures demonstrated plaintiffs must\\nat a minimum have known facts that, in the exercise of\\nreasonable diligence, would have led to actual knowledge of\\ntheir claims.\\n Although the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint\\nas untimely, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend if they\\nwished “to expressly contradict the court’s conclusion about\\nthe dates that they learned of the facts that would lead them\\nto their claims.”\\n C\\n Plaintiffs accepted the district court’s invitation and\\namended their complaint in three ways. First, they deleted all\\nreferences to the PrivCo Report and congressional hearings.\\nSecond, they asserted Delaware rather than Illinois law\\ncontrols this case under choice of law provisions within\\ncertain Fisker securities purchase agreements. Third, they\\nclaimed they first learned of the defendants’ purported\\nwrongdoing on December 27, 2013, after an action was\\nbrought in Delaware by separate investor plaintiffs against\\nsome of the same defendants here. 2\\n Defendants moved again for dismissal and judgment on\\nthe pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\nand (c). They argued plaintiffs’ amended complaint suffers\\nfrom the same infirmities as the original and that the lawsuit\\n\\n 2 The Delaware plaintiffs raised the same core allegations as the plain-\\n\\ntiffs here, relied on the same information derived from the PrivCo Report\\nand congressional hearings, and were represented by the same counsel.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 7\\n\\nremains time-barred. The district court agreed, and\\nconcluded that plaintiffs’ claims came under Illinois law,\\nregardless of plaintiffs’ contention that Delaware law should\\napply.\\n The district court also ruled that plaintiffs’ amended\\ncomplaint failed to cure the fundamental problem with their\\noriginal complaint, which affirmatively pleaded plaintiffs\\nhad notice of their claims in April 2013. After the first dismis-\\nsal, the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend to “expressly\\ncontradict” its finding that plaintiffs learned of facts in April\\n2013 that would lead them to their claims. But rather than\\nrebut the court’s finding, plaintiffs just deleted all references\\nto the PrivCo Report or congressional hearings from their\\namended complaint. Because this information was not contra-\\ndicted in the amended complaint, the court reaffirmed its\\nprevious conclusion that Illinois’s three-year statute of limita-\\ntions for securities law claims barred plaintiffs’ action, and\\ndismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.\\n II\\n We review de novo a district court’s order granting a Rule\\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.\\nIndep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934\\n(7th Cir. 2012). We similarly review de novo a district court’s\\ngrant of judgment under Rule 12(c). Milwaukee Police Ass'n v.\\nFlynn, 863 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Brooks v. Ross,\\n578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that practical effect of\\naddressing a statute of limitations defense in Rule 12(c)\\nmotion is same as addressing it in Rule 12(b)(6) motion).\\n Where a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish a\\nstatute of limitations defense, the district court may dismiss\\n\\f8 No. 18-1815\\n\\nthe complaint on that ground. O'Gorman v. City of Chicago,\\n777 F.3d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 2015); Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. GN\\nHoldings, Inc., 67 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the context\\nof securities litigation, if a plaintiff pleads facts that show its\\nsuit [is] barred by a statute of limitations, it may plead itself\\nout of court under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.”). In performing\\nour review, we take the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true\\nand give them the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Whirl-\\npool Fin. Corp., 67 F.3d at 608. We may also take judicial notice\\nof matters of public record and consider documents\\nincorporated by reference in the pleadings. Milwaukee\\nPolice Ass’n, 863 F.3d at 640.\\n The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as precluded\\nby Illinois securities law’s three-year statute of limitations. On\\nappeal, we decide whether that limitations period applies,\\nand if so, whether it has expired.\\n A\\n A district court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies\\nthe statute of limitations of the forum state, Klein v. George G.\\nKerasotes Corp., 500 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2007), in this case\\nIllinois.\\n Plaintiffs argue otherwise. Despite bringing securities-\\nbased claims, they contend the Illinois securities laws do not\\ngovern their lawsuit. They argue choice of law provisions\\ncontained in some (but not all) of the Fisker securities\\npurchase agreements they executed required them to pursue\\ntheir claims under Delaware law. Plaintiffs posit that because\\nthey are precluded from any remedies under the Illinois\\nsecurities law, they cannot be subject to its three-year statute\\nof limitations, and thus that their lawsuit must be governed\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 9\\n\\nby Illinois’s five-year statute of limitations for “civil actions\\nnot otherwise provided for.” See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT.\\n5/13-205.\\n Plaintiffs’ argument is ambitious, but not supported by\\nlaw. As an initial matter, choice of law provisions did not bind\\nthe plaintiffs. Nor do choice of law provisions automatically\\nforeclose the application of a forum state’s laws. Rather,\\nchoice of law issues may be waived or forfeited by declining\\nto assert them in litigation. See McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables,\\nInc., 760 F.3d 674, 684 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The choice of law issue\\nmay be waived … if a party fails to assert it.”); see also Vukadi-\\nnovich v. McCarthy, 59 F.3d 58, 62 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that\\nchoice of law is “normally” waivable). Plaintiffs were likewise\\nfree to waive the Delaware choice of law provisions they now\\ninvoke. Further, the Illinois three-year statute of limitations\\napplies to all actions “brought for relief under [the Illinois\\nsecurities laws] or upon or because of any of the matters for\\nwhich relief is granted.” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). Thus,\\n“claims that do not directly invoke the [Illinois securities\\nlaws] may still fall within its statute of limitations,” including\\nDelaware common law claims, like those plaintiffs assert.\\nKlein, 500 F.3d at 671 (citing Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,\\n678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)).\\n In Tregenza, an investor plaintiff raised the same types of\\nclaims as plaintiffs here—common law causes of action for\\nbreach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresenta-\\ntion arising out of the purchase of securities. The Illinois Ap-\\npellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the investor’s claims\\nand held that they triggered the three-year statute of limita-\\ntions because “[they] are reliant ‘upon … matters for which\\n\\f10 No. 18-1815\\n\\nrelief is granted’ by the Securities Law.” Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d\\nat 15 (quoting 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)).\\n We applied the same reasoning in Klein to conclude the\\nIllinois securities laws governed the plaintiff’s claims.\\n500 F.3d at 672–74 (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for\\ncommon law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive\\ndamages as untimely under the Illinois securities laws). 3 In\\nKlein, we held that whether a plaintiff’s claim amounts to an\\naction for relief under the Illinois securities law, or upon or\\nbecause of any of the matters for which relief is granted by the\\nsecurities law, depends on what acts are encompassed within\\nthe securities law. Id. at 672; see also 815 ILL. COMP. STAT.\\n5/13(D); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 824 F. Supp.\\n2d 1164, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (interpreting same Illinois stat-\\nute) (“The Court need not look past the plain language of the\\nstatute to conclude that the ‘matters for which relief is\\ngranted’ refers to the conduct giving rise to a suit rather than\\nthe procedural question of whether an [Illinois securities law]\\nsuit is allowed in a particular case.”)\\n Illinois’s securities laws expressly prohibit the types of\\nmisconduct alleged by plaintiffs and provide remedies there-\\nfor. Plaintiffs claim defendants concealed material infor-\\nmation and made knowingly false statements regarding\\nFisker’s operational and financial conditions in connection\\nwith the sale of Fisker securities. Such conduct is prohibited\\n\\n 3Before 2013, the Illinois securities laws contained a five-year statute\\nof repose, which applied to any “action … brought for relief under this\\nSection or upon or because of any of the matters for which relief is granted\\nby this Section.” See 2013 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 98–174 § 13(D) (West). In\\ndeciding whether the former statute of repose applied to the claims in\\nKlein, we interpreted the same statutes as here.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 11\\n\\nunder Illinois securities laws sections 5/12(F) (prohibiting\\nfraud and deceit in connection with the sale of securities),\\n5/12(G) (prohibiting the sale of securities by means of untrue\\nor misleading statements), and 5/12(I) (prohibiting any\\ndevice, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with the\\nsale of securities). See 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/12. Section 13 of\\nthis statute provides remedies for the conduct prohibited in\\nthese statutes. Likewise, its three-year statute of limitations\\nexpressly applies to their violation. So under Klein, plaintiffs\\nhave pleaded acts encompassed within and governed by the\\nIllinois securities laws, which are governed by its limitation\\nperiod.\\n Plaintiffs contend that rather than Klein, Carpenter v. Exelon\\nEnterprises Co., LLC, 927 N.E.2d 768 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2010),\\ncontrols this case. Carpenter held that § 13 of the Illinois secu-\\nrities laws does not provide a remedy for common law claims\\nfor breach of fiduciary duty brought by sellers of securities.\\nId. at 774–77. Because the plaintiffs-sellers in Carpenter lacked\\na remedy under the Illinois securities laws, the Illinois Appel-\\nlate Court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations did\\nnot govern their claims. Id. at 777. But where Carpenter and\\nKlein separate—whether the Illinois securities laws provide a\\nremedy for stock sellers—is of no value to plaintiffs. The lack\\nof an available remedy in Carpenter was due to the Carpenter\\nplaintiffs’ status as stock sellers. Here, plaintiffs sue as\\npurchasers of Fisker securities, not sellers. The Illinois securi-\\nties laws expressly provide relief to securities purchasers. See\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(A) (specifying that those who par-\\nticipated or aided in selling a security in violation of the Illi-\\nnois securities laws are “joint and severally liable to the pur-\\nchaser,” including purchasers’ attorneys’ fees and expenses).\\n\\f12 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ position also suffers from forum shopping prob-\\nlems because the outcome they propose would reward a\\nstockholder who fails to bring suit in the appropriate state in\\na timely manner. To address this problem, plaintiffs cite\\nFerens v. John Deere Co. to show that forum shopping for a\\nmore favorable statute of limitations is permissible. 494 U.S.\\n516, 531 (1990) (applying Mississippi’s six-year statute of\\nlimitations to Pennsylvania claims after Pennsylvania’s two-\\nyear tort limitations period had expired). But here, unlike in\\nFerens, a more favorable statute of limitations law does not\\nexist. Plaintiffs concede that had they initiated their lawsuit in\\nDelaware under Delaware law, their claims would be subject\\nto a three-year statute of limitations. Likewise, had plaintiffs\\ninitiated their lawsuit in Illinois under Illinois law, the same\\nthree-year limit would be applied. Plaintiffs have offered no\\nauthority to support their contention that by suing in Illinois\\nunder Delaware law, parties get two additional years to sue.\\n Plaintiffs cannot avoid Illinois’s statute of limitations by\\nencasing their common law claims in a Delaware husk.\\nBecause the Illinois securities law’s three-year limitations\\nperiod controls in this case, Illinois’s residual five-year statute\\nof limitations does not apply. See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13-\\n205 (restricting five-year statute of limitations to “civil actions\\nnot otherwise provided for”); see also Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d at\\n15 (holding that the plaintiff’s action “is a cause otherwise\\nprovided for” under the Illinois securities law, and that five-\\nyear limitations period in § 5/13-205 is inapplicable) (internal\\nquotations omitted). The remaining question is whether\\nplaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 13\\n\\n B\\n Actions for relief under the Illinois securities laws must be\\nbrought within three years from the date of a security’s sale.\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). But if the party suing neither\\nknew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have\\nknown of any alleged violation of the Illinois securities law,\\nthe three-year period to sue for Illinois securities law claims\\nbegins to run the earlier of:\\n (1) the date upon which the party bringing the\\n action has actual knowledge of the alleged viola-\\n tion of this Act; or\\n (2) the date upon which the party bringing the\\n action has notice of facts which in the exercise of rea-\\n sonable diligence would lead to actual knowledge of\\n the alleged violation of this Act.\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(1)-(2) (emphases added).\\n Fisker securities were last sold to these plaintiffs in 2012.\\nYet plaintiffs’ amended complaint avers they did not know of\\nfacts concerning the defendants’ alleged violations until after\\nDecember 27, 2013, such that their October 14, 2016, original\\ncomplaint was timely filed. In its final dismissal order,\\nhowever, the district court found that the defendants’ alleged\\nfraud “was presented for the entire world to see no fewer than\\nthree times before October 14, 2013.” Applying an “inquiry\\nnotice” standard, the district court determined that PrivCo’s\\nand Congress’s April 2013 disclosures gave plaintiffs notice\\nof their potential claims. These findings were not rebutted,\\nand the district court concluded it was implausible that plain-\\ntiffs were first notified of facts leading to their claims later\\nthan April 2013.\\n\\f14 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s application of\\ninquiry notice to dismiss their claims. They argue the first\\nclause of 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(2) regarding “notice of\\nfacts” means “actual notice of facts,” not “inquiry notice.”\\nPlaintiffs note that “inquiry notice” does not appear in the\\nstatute. But plaintiffs’ position encounters two problems.\\nFirst, although the text of § 5/13(D)(2) does not include the\\nphrase “inquiry notice,” it also does not include “actual\\nnotice.” Plaintiffs ask us to supplant one omitted term for\\nanother, which leads to the second problem: if we agreed with\\nplaintiffs’ proposed interpretation, what constitutes “actual\\nnotice of facts” would be indistinguishable from “actual\\nknowledge,” the triggering event contained in § 5/13(D)(1).\\nSuch a reading would render § 5/13(D)(1) redundant, which\\nviolates the surplusage canon of statutory construction.\\nANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW 176\\n(2012).\\n In contrast, the inquiry notice standard is consistent with\\n§ 5/13(D) and the cases interpreting this statute. Cf. Tregenza\\nv. Great Am. Commc’ns Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993)\\n(explaining that under “inquiry notice,” a statute of limita-\\ntions “begins to run when the victim of the alleged fraud\\nbecame aware of facts that would have led a reasonable per-\\nson to investigate whether he might have a claim”); Allstate\\nIns. Co., 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1182 (holding § 5/13(D) “appears to\\nbe very close to the California inquiry notice standard,” which\\n“requires only that a party be on notice that an injury was\\n‘caused by wrongdoing’ before the statute begins to run.”).\\n But here, we need not decide which notice standard\\napplies because plaintiffs’ suit is time-barred under the plain\\nlanguage of § 5/13(D). Applying the text of § 5/13(D) to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 15\\n\\ncase, plaintiffs must show they did not have notice of facts\\nthat, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, would lead to\\nactual knowledge of the defendants’ alleged violations on or\\nbefore October 14, 2013. They have failed to do so. Plaintiffs’\\noriginal complaint made more than fleeting references to the\\nApril 2013 PrivCo Report and ensuing congressional\\nhearings. They repeatedly pleaded these publications\\n“brought to light” and “revealed” the facts forming the bases\\nof their lawsuit. The PrivCo Report’s writing was not subtle.\\nIt characterized Fisker as “the most tragic venture capital-\\nbacked debacle in recent history” and alluded to fraud and\\nbreach of fiduciary duties as the cause of Fisker’s “breathtak-\\ning wreckage.” The PrivCo Report and congressional\\nhearings did more than stir up the possibility of a legal action;\\nthey provided plaintiffs a detailed litigation roadmap.\\n Red flags were not limited to disclosures by PrivCo and\\nCongress as provided in their original complaint. According\\nto plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2011 “a scandal\\nerupted concerning Solyndra, another green energy start up\\nwith DOE funding, and Fisker [] became a political issue\\ngiven its similar ties to DOE, becoming the subject of negative\\nstories on major news networks like ABC, CBS, and Fox, as\\nwell as major newspapers.” The amended complaint contin-\\nues that in early January 2012, Fisker executives notified\\ninvestors that “DOE refused to resume funding Fisker.” In\\nFebruary 2012, media reported that Fisker’s “cash crunch”\\nresulted in forced layoffs, in addition to reporting on Fisker’s\\nscaled back sales projections and automobile recalls. The\\nsame month, Fisker also informed its investors that it had\\nbecome “a political football” and that its negative press was\\n“a consequence of [] election year politics.” In August 2012,\\nFisker’s leadership wrote to stockholders explaining that\\n\\f16 No. 18-1815\\n\\nFisker “has been under a media microscope” and was “the\\ntarget of politically motivated PR attacks.”\\n “Scandals,” “negative stories,” “cash crunches,” product\\nrecalls, layoffs, “PR attacks,” nationwide portrayal as a polit-\\nical scapegoat, and cancellation of crucial federal funding—\\nall under the lens of a “media microscope”—are distressing\\nfacts for any stockholder. All of these signals occurred before\\nApril 2013 and were incorporated into plaintiffs’ amended\\ncomplaint.\\n Fisker was a sophisticated and speculative private equity\\ninvestment. Among plaintiffs, the lowest total investment\\nwas over $350,000, and the highest over $7,500,000. Yet even\\nan unsophisticated investor should have realized between\\nlate 2011 (when Fisker was correlated with Solyndra) and\\nApril 2013 (following the release of the PrivCo Report) that\\nsomething was wrong. Even assuming plaintiffs shut them-\\nselves off from media, a simple internet search of “Fisker” to\\ncheck on the status of their investment—as any reasonable\\ninvestor would do—would have revealed these troubling\\nfacts. Plaintiffs counter that defendants were especially\\nsophisticated and employed significant resources to conceal\\nFisker’s problems. The ominous facts plaintiffs detail in their\\namended complaint undercut this assertion. Even if plausible,\\nplaintiffs’ assertion expired once PrivCo and Congress\\npresented Fisker’s flaws to the public. Defendants could no\\nlonger conceal wrongdoings because, as plaintiffs expressly\\nconcede, PrivCo and Congress “revealed” and “brought to\\nlight” such wrongdoings as early as April 2013.\\n Finally, plaintiffs contend the district court improperly\\nconstrued allegations in their superseded original complaint\\nas judicial admissions. See 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 17\\n\\nF.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 2002) (“When a party has amended a\\npleading, allegations and statements in earlier pleadings are\\nnot considered judicial admissions.”). Plaintiffs insist that\\nallegations in a superseded complaint—here, references to the\\nPrivCo Report and congressional hearings—should be\\nignored.\\n An amended pleading does not operate as a judicial tabula\\nrasa. “Under some circumstances, a party may offer earlier\\nversions of its opponent's pleadings as evidence of the facts\\ntherein.” Id. In response, “the amending party may offer evi-\\ndence to rebut its superseded allegations.” Id. Consistent with\\nthis process, the district court granted plaintiffs leave to\\namend to rebut facts that they pleaded in their original com-\\nplaint showing their awareness of the defendants’ alleged\\nsecurities violations more than three years before filing. The\\ncourt provided plaintiffs the opportunity to expressly contra-\\ndict the court’s finding about when they learned of facts that\\nwould lead them to their claims. Rather than contradict those\\nfacts, plaintiffs simply deleted any references to them. A\\ndistrict court is not required to ignore its prior decision, or its\\nfindings supporting a dismissal and grant of leave to amend,\\nwhere, as here, the findings are based upon undisputed\\npublic information plaintiffs themselves brought before the\\ndistrict court.\\n A district court may judicially notice a fact that is not sub-\\nject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) “is generally known\\nwithin the trial court's territorial jurisdiction;” or (2) “can be\\naccurately and readily determined from sources whose accu-\\nracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R. EVID. 201(b);\\nsee also General Electric Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp.,\\n128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding same). Here, the\\n\\f18 No. 18-1815\\n\\ndistrict court considered the original complaint, as well as its\\n2017 opinion inviting plaintiffs to rebut their allegations of\\nnotice triggering the Illinois securities limitations period. “[I]f\\nthe finding taken from the prior proceeding is ‘not subject to\\nreasonable dispute,’ then the court has satisfied the eviden-\\ntiary criteria for judicial notice.” General Elec. Capital Corp., 128\\nF.3d at 1082; see also Watkins v. United States, 854 F.3d 947, 950\\n(7th Cir. 2017) (“Absent a claim that there is a plausible, good-\\nfaith basis to challenge the legitimacy of [a prior complaint],”\\nthe court is entitled to take judicial notice of a complaint and\\nits contents). That the PrivCo report exists, the Congressional\\nhearings transpired, and plaintiffs pleaded both facts in their\\noriginal complaint is beyond “reasonable dispute.” Accord-\\ningly, the district court permissibly considered these findings\\nin its second and final dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.\\n III\\n Plaintiffs’ case concerns matters for which the Illinois\\nsecurities laws grant relief, and therefore falls within its three-\\nyear statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims against the\\ndefendants accrued no later than April 2013, but they filed\\ntheir complaint in October 2016. Because plaintiffs failed to\\nbring this action within three years from the date their claims\\naccrued, their lawsuit was untimely filed and appropriately\\ndismissed.\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":186,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579305,"string":"4,579,305"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Marco Proano"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3466"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3466 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMARCO PROANO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \\nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \\ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \\nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \\nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\n I. Background \\nA. The Shooting \\n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \\nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \\nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \\nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \\nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \\npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \\nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \\nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \\nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \\nparked on the street. \\n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \\nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \\nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \\nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \\nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \\nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \\nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\\nherty dispatched for backup. \\n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \\nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \\nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \\nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \\nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \\n\\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \\none was in its path. \\n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \\ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \\nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \\napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \\nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \\nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \\npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \\nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \\nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \\npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\\nficer fired his weapon. \\n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \\nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \\nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \\nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \\nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \\ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \\nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \\nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \\nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \\n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \\nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \\nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \\nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \\nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \\ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \\nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \\nB. The Prosecution \\n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \\nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \\nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \\nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \\n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \\nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \\nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \\nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \\ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \\ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \\nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \\nsources” for any information the government could have \\ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \\n \\n1 \\n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \\nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \\nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\\nally vague about their contents. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \\n\\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \\nto trial. \\n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \\nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \\nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \\nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \\ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \\nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \\nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \\nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \\npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \\nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \\nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \\nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \\nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \\nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \\n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \\nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \\nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \\nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \\nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \\n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \\nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \\ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \\nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \\nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \\nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \\nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \\nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \\nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \\nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \\nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \\nprotect the life of another. \\n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \\ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \\nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \\nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \\nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \\nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \\nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \\nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \\nthreat.” \\n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \\nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \\nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \\nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \\nof the footage. \\n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \\njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \\n\\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \\ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \\ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \\n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \\nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \\nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \\nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \\nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \\nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \\n II. Discussion \\n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \\nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \\nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \\nchallenge in turn. \\nA. The Garrity Motion \\n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \\nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \\nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \\nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \\npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \\ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \\nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \\n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \\nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \\nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \\n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \\nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \\nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \\n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \\nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \\nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \\na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \\nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \\nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \\nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \\ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \\nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \\nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \\nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \\nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \\nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \\ncourt. That is not clear error. \\n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \\nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \\nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \\nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \\nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \\nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \\nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \\n\\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \\nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \\nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \\n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \\nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \\nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \\nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \\nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \\nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \\nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \\nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \\ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \\nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \\nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \\nprosecutors. \\nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \\n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \\ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \\nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \\nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \\n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \\n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \\nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \\nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \\nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \\n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \\n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \\nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \\nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \\nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \\ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \\nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \\nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \\n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \\n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \\nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \\n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \\n \\n2 \\n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \\nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \\n\\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \\nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \\nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \\nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \\n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \\npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \\nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \\nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \\ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \\nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \\nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \\nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \\ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \\nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \\ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \\nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \\nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \\nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \\nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \\nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \\nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \\ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \\ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \\nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\\nlated evidence. \\n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \\nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \\nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \\nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \\nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \\nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \\n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \\n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \\nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \\ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \\na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \\nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \\nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \\nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \\nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \\ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\\nfore offers no guide here. \\n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \\nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \\nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \\non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \\n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \\nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \\n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \\nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \\nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \\nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \\n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \\n\\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \\nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \\nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \\n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \\n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \\n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \\nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \\nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \\ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \\ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \\ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \\nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \\nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \\n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \\nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \\ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \\nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \\nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \\n \\n3 \\n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \\nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \\npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \\nhere. \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \\n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \\n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \\nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \\nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \\nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \\nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \\nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \\n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \\n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \\nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \\nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \\n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \\nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \\nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \\nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \\ninstructed the jury: \\n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \\n should not consider this training when you decide \\n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \\n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \\n\\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \\n time he acted.4 \\n\\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \\nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \\n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \\nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \\nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \\nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \\nof unfair prejudice). \\n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \\nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \\ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \\nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \\ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \\nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \\nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \\namounted to violating § 242. \\n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \\n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \\nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \\nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \\ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \\nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \\n \\n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\\n\\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \\ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \\ntestimony.” Id. \\n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \\ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \\ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \\n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \\ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \\nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \\nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \\nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \\nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \\nacademy. \\n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \\nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \\ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \\nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \\nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \\ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \\ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \\n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \\nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \\nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \\nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \\n\\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \\nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \\nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \\nC. Willfulness Instruction \\n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \\nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \\nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \\nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \\n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \\nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \\ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \\nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \\ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \\nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \\nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \\nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \\nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \\nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \\nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \\nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \\n \\n5\\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \\ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \\nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \\ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\\nview. \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \\nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \\nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \\n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \\n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \\nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \\n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \\nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \\nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \\nexplained further: \\n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \\n knowing that the force he used was more than what \\n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \\n if he did not know that the force he used was more \\n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\\n der the circumstances. \\nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \\nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \\nWe disagree. \\n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \\nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \\nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \\nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \\nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \\nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \\n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \\nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \\n\\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \\nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \\nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \\nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \\nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \\n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \\nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \\nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \\n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \\nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \\nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \\nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \\nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \\nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \\n\\n\\n \\n6 \\n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \\n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \\n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \\n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \\nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \\ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \\nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \\n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \\nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \\nthe district court fairly stated the law. \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \\n“knowing” out of the instruction. \\n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \\njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \\nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \\nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \\nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \\ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \\nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \\ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \\nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \\n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \\nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \\nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \\nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \\n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \\nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \\nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \\n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \\n893 F.3d at 484. \\n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \\nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \\nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \\n\\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \\nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \\nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \\ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \\nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \\nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \\n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \\n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \\n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \\nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \\nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \\nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\\ntation omitted). \\n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \\nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \\npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \\nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \\nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \\nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \\ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \\ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \\nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \\nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \\nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \\nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \\nToyota stopped its retreat. \\n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \\njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \\n\\f22 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \\nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \\nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \\nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \\nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \\nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \\nfired in reaction to the weapon. \\n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \\nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \\ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \\nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \\narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \\nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \\nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \\nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \\n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \\nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \\nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \\nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \\nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \\nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \\neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \\nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \\n\\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \\nonce a suspect is subdued”). \\n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \\nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \\ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \\nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \\nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \\nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \\nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \\nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \\nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \\nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \\nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \\nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \\nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \\nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \\n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \\nto convict Proano on both counts. \\n III. Conclusion \\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\\nment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356558/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579305/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Marco Proano\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3466 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \n v. \n\nMARCO PROANO, \n Defendant‐Appellant. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \n\f2 No. 17‐3466 \n\n I. Background \nA. The Shooting \n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \nparked on the street. \n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\nherty dispatched for backup. \n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \n\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \n\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \none was in its path. \n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\nficer fired his weapon. \n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \n\f4 No. 17‐3466 \n\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \nB. The Prosecution \n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \nsources” for any information the government could have \ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \n \n1 \n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\nally vague about their contents. \n\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \n\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \nto trial. \n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \n\f6 No. 17‐3466 \n\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \nprotect the life of another. \n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \nthreat.” \n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \nof the footage. \n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \n\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \n\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \n II. Discussion \n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \nchallenge in turn. \nA. The Garrity Motion \n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \n\f8 No. 17‐3466 \n\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \ncourt. That is not clear error. \n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \n\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \n\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \nprosecutors. \nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \n\f10 No. 17‐3466 \n\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \n \n2 \n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \n\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \n\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\nlated evidence. \n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \n\f12 No. 17‐3466 \n\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\nfore offers no guide here. \n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \n\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \n\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \n \n3 \n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \nhere. \n\f14 No. 17‐3466 \n\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \ninstructed the jury: \n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \n should not consider this training when you decide \n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \n\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \n\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \n time he acted.4 \n\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \nof unfair prejudice). \n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \namounted to violating § 242. \n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \n \n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\n\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \n\f16 No. 17‐3466 \n\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \ntestimony.” Id. \n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \nacademy. \n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \n\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \n\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \nC. Willfulness Instruction \n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \n \n5\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\nview. \n\f18 No. 17‐3466 \n\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \nexplained further: \n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \n knowing that the force he used was more than what \n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \n if he did not know that the force he used was more \n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\n der the circumstances. \nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \nWe disagree. \n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \n\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \n\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \n\n\n \n6 \n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \nthe district court fairly stated the law. \n\f20 No. 17‐3466 \n\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \n“knowing” out of the instruction. \n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \n893 F.3d at 484. \n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \n\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \n\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\ntation omitted). \n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \nToyota stopped its retreat. \n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \n\f22 No. 17‐3466 \n\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \nfired in reaction to the weapon. \n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\n\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \n\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \nonce a suspect is subdued”). \n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \nto convict Proano on both counts. \n III. Conclusion \n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\nment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Marco Proano\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3466 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMARCO PROANO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \\nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \\ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \\nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \\nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\n I. Background \\nA. The Shooting \\n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \\nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \\nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \\nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \\nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \\npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \\nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \\nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \\nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \\nparked on the street. \\n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \\nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \\nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \\nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \\nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \\nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \\nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\\nherty dispatched for backup. \\n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \\nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \\nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \\nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \\nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \\n\\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \\none was in its path. \\n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \\ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \\nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \\napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \\nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \\nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \\npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \\nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \\nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \\npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\\nficer fired his weapon. \\n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \\nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \\nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \\nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \\nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \\ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \\nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \\nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \\nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \\n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \\nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \\nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \\nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \\nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \\ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \\nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \\nB. The Prosecution \\n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \\nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \\nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \\nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \\n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \\nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \\nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \\nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \\ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \\ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \\nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \\nsources” for any information the government could have \\ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \\n \\n1 \\n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \\nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \\nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\\nally vague about their contents. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \\n\\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \\nto trial. \\n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \\nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \\nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \\nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \\ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \\nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \\nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \\nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \\npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \\nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \\nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \\nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \\nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \\nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \\n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \\nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \\nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \\nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \\nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \\n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \\nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \\ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \\nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \\nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \\nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \\nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \\nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \\nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \\nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \\nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \\nprotect the life of another. \\n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \\ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \\nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \\nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \\nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \\nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \\nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \\nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \\nthreat.” \\n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \\nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \\nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \\nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \\nof the footage. \\n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \\njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \\n\\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \\ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \\ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \\n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \\nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \\nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \\nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \\nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \\nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \\n II. Discussion \\n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \\nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \\nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \\nchallenge in turn. \\nA. The Garrity Motion \\n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \\nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \\nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \\nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \\npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \\ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \\nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \\n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \\nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \\nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \\n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \\nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \\nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \\n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \\nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \\nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \\na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \\nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \\nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \\nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \\ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \\nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \\nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \\nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \\nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \\nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \\ncourt. That is not clear error. \\n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \\nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \\nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \\nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \\nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \\nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \\nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \\n\\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \\nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \\nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \\n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \\nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \\nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \\nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \\nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \\nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \\nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \\nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \\ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \\nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \\nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \\nprosecutors. \\nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \\n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \\ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \\nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \\nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \\n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \\n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \\nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \\nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \\nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \\n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \\n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \\nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \\nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \\nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \\ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \\nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \\nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \\n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \\n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \\nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \\n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \\n \\n2 \\n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \\nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \\n\\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \\nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \\nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \\nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \\n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \\npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \\nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \\nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \\ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \\nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \\nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \\nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \\ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \\nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \\ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \\nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \\nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \\nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \\nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \\nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \\nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \\ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \\ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \\nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\\nlated evidence. \\n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \\nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \\nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \\nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \\nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \\nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \\n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \\n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \\nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \\ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \\na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \\nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \\nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \\nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \\nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \\ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\\nfore offers no guide here. \\n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \\nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \\nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \\non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \\n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \\nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \\n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \\nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \\nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \\nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \\n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \\n\\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \\nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \\nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \\n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \\n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \\n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \\nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \\nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \\ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \\ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \\ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \\nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \\nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \\n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \\nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \\ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \\nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \\nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \\n \\n3 \\n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \\nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \\npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \\nhere. \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \\n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \\n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \\nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \\nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \\nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \\nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \\nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \\n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \\n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \\nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \\nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \\n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \\nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \\nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \\nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \\ninstructed the jury: \\n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \\n should not consider this training when you decide \\n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \\n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \\n\\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \\n time he acted.4 \\n\\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \\nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \\n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \\nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \\nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \\nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \\nof unfair prejudice). \\n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \\nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \\ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \\nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \\ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \\nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \\nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \\namounted to violating § 242. \\n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \\n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \\nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \\nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \\ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \\nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \\n \\n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\\n\\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \\ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \\ntestimony.” Id. \\n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \\ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \\ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \\n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \\ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \\nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \\nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \\nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \\nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \\nacademy. \\n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \\nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \\ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \\nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \\nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \\ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \\ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \\n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \\nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \\nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \\nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \\n\\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \\nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \\nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \\nC. Willfulness Instruction \\n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \\nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \\nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \\nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \\n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \\nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \\ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \\nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \\ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \\nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \\nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \\nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \\nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \\nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \\nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \\nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \\n \\n5\\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \\ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \\nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \\ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\\nview. \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \\nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \\nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \\n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \\n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \\nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \\n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \\nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \\nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \\nexplained further: \\n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \\n knowing that the force he used was more than what \\n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \\n if he did not know that the force he used was more \\n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\\n der the circumstances. \\nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \\nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \\nWe disagree. \\n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \\nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \\nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \\nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \\nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \\nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \\n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \\nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \\n\\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \\nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \\nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \\nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \\nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \\n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \\nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \\nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \\n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \\nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \\nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \\nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \\nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \\nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \\n\\n\\n \\n6 \\n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \\n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \\n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \\n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \\nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \\ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \\nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \\n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \\nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \\nthe district court fairly stated the law. \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \\n“knowing” out of the instruction. \\n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \\njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \\nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \\nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \\nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \\ncomplimentary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \\nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \\ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \\nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \\n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \\nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \\nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \\nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \\n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \\nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \\nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \\n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \\n893 F.3d at 484. \\n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \\nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \\nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \\n\\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \\nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \\nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \\ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \\nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \\nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \\n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \\n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \\n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \\nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \\nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \\nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\\ntation omitted). \\n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \\nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \\npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \\nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \\nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \\nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \\ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \\ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \\nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \\nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \\nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \\nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \\nToyota stopped its retreat. \\n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \\njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \\n\\f22 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \\nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \\nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \\nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \\nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \\nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \\nfired in reaction to the weapon. \\n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \\nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \\ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \\nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \\narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \\nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \\nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \\nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \\n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \\nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \\nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \\nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \\nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \\nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \\neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \\nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \\n\\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \\nonce a suspect is subdued”). \\n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \\nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \\ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \\nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \\nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \\nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \\nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \\nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \\nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \\nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \\nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \\nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \\nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \\nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \\n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \\nto convict Proano on both counts. \\n III. Conclusion \\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\\nment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":187,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579306,"string":"4,579,306"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Keith Daubenspeck"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1815"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1815\\nORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nKEITH DAUBENSPECK, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:16-cv-10849 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\\nBRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Hype and reality can be at odds.\\nThis contrast arises often in postmortems on once-fashiona-\\nble, now-failed investment securities. Hype can raise inves-\\ntors’ hopes and, in turn, capital contributions. But when hype\\naccelerates an investment’s market value beyond its actual\\nworth, a financial bubble is formed.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Fisker Automotive, Inc. was such a bubble, bursting in\\n2013. Plaintiffs, all purchasers of Fisker securities between\\n2009 and 2012, assert various claims against defendants, each\\nof whom played roles in Fisker’s early-stage financing, for\\nallegedly misleading investors regarding Fisker’s intrinsic\\nvalue and imminent collapse. 1 Illinois law provides remedies\\nwhen securities are sold by means of deceptive and fraudu-\\nlent practices. But like any civil action, such claims must be\\ntimely filed. Our review does not explore the cause of or the\\ndefendants’ alleged roles in Fisker’s failure. Rather, we decide\\nwhether plaintiffs’ claims fall within the Illinois securities\\nlaws, and if so whether their claims are time-barred by\\nIllinois’s three-year statute of limitations for securities-based\\nclaims.\\n I\\n A\\n In 2008, Fisker, a manufacturer of luxury hybrid electric\\ncars, began attracting substantial financing as part of a trend\\nin venture capital investments toward green energy technol-\\nogy start-ups. Investor enthusiasm was spurred by a $528.7\\nmillion loan to Fisker from the U.S. Department of Energy,\\nwhich offered direct financial support to manufacturers of\\nclean energy vehicles and components. Under the loan’s\\nterms, the Energy Department advanced Fisker $192 million.\\n\\n\\n 1Plaintiffs-appellants are Orgone Capital III, LLC, David Burnidge,\\nLincolnshire Fisker, LLC, Kenneth A. Steele, Jr., and Robert F. Steel, and\\ndefendants-appellees are Fisker director Keith Daubenspeck, Fisker’s\\nventure capital patron Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Kleiner Perkins’s\\nmanaging partners Ray Lane and John Doerr, and Fisker’s lead invest-\\nment banker Peter McDonnell.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 3\\n\\nThe venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a\\ndefendant here and a controlling shareholder of Fisker,\\nassisted with negotiating and securing the loan to Fisker.\\nPlaintiffs characterize Kleiner Perkins as “politically-con-\\nnected” and a “pioneering titan” of Silicon Valley’s venture\\ncapital industry, known for its “hugely successful early back-\\ning of companies.”\\n Support from the federal government and Kleiner Perkins\\nwere not the only factors sparking investor interest. Celebri-\\nties including tech-industry rainmakers and A-list movie\\nstars invested in Fisker’s future. Media outlets from Wall\\nStreet to Hollywood reported on these luminaries’ investment\\nin and association with Fisker. Further fueling the excitement\\nwas Fisker’s public competition with another emerging\\nplayer in the electric vehicle market, Tesla, Inc.\\n In 2009, before sales began on its first generation of vehi-\\ncles, Fisker announced that beginning in 2012 or 2013 its\\nsecond generation of vehicles would be built in Delaware.\\nDelaware agreed to chip in $21.5 million in state subsidies and\\nVice President Joe Biden and Delaware Governor Jack\\nMarkell participated in Fisker’s media unveiling of this\\neconomic collaboration. Riding this wave of publicity and\\ncontributions, Fisker secured funding from additional\\nventure capital firms and high net worth investors. These\\ninvestors included the five plaintiffs at bar, who collectively\\npurchased over $10 million in Fisker securities. By 2011, insti-\\ntutional and individual investors had poured $1.1 billion into\\nFisker, betting on its revenue potential and sustainability\\nvalues.\\n Fisker’s rise was rapid and highly publicized. So was its\\nfall. In late 2011, Fisker began selling its flagship automobile.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1815\\n\\nBy August 2012, it stopped all manufacturing operations to\\npreserve cash, and in April 2013, Fisker laid off 75% of its re-\\nmaining workforce. That same month, the U.S. Government\\nseized $21 million in cash from Fisker to fulfill its first loan\\npayment. In September 2013, the Energy Department put\\nFisker’s remaining unpaid loan amount (approximately $168\\nmillion) out to bid at a public auction. In November 2013,\\nFisker filed for bankruptcy protection. The bubble had burst,\\nand lawsuits followed.\\n B\\n On October 14, 2016, these plaintiffs filed a class action\\ncomplaint against the defendants alleging fraud, fraudulent\\nconcealment of material information, breach of fiduciary\\nduty, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with\\ntheir purchases of Fisker securities. In the complaint, plain-\\ntiffs referenced a report released on April 17, 2013, by a\\nprivate research firm, PrivCo, entitled “FISKER\\nAUTOMOTIVE’S ROAD TO RUIN: How a ‘Billion-Dollar\\nStartup Became a Billion-Dollar Disaster’.” A press release\\naccompanying this PrivCo Report opined Fisker may go\\ndown as “the most tragic venture capital-backed debacle in\\nrecent history” due to “[t]he sheer scale of investment capital\\nand government loan money.” The PrivCo Report claimed\\nthis money and capital was “squandered so rapidly and with\\nso little to show for it that the wreckage is breathtaking.”\\nAccording to plaintiffs, the PrivCo Report was supported by\\nover 11,000 pages of documents exposing Fisker’s imminent\\nbankruptcy and malfeasant management. The PrivCo Report\\nalso highlighted production and financial data plaintiffs claim\\ndefendants concealed.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 5\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ original complaint also describes several\\ncongressional hearings held in April 2013, one week after the\\nPrivCo Report was published. Those hearings included testi-\\nmony from both government and Fisker officials as part of a\\ncongressional investigation of Fisker’s impending failure and\\nthe loss of $192 million in taxpayer funds.\\n The complaint details how the PrivCo Report and congres-\\nsional hearings “brought to light” and “revealed the defend-\\nants’ alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiffs pleaded “[t]he investi-\\ngations by PrivCo and Congress revealed fraud and breach of\\nfiduciary duties by, among others, [the defendants], in\\nconnection with [d]efendants’ scheme to induce [p]laintiffs\\nand the Class to purchase Fisker Automotive Securities while\\nconcealing from them material adverse information.” Plain-\\ntiffs also alleged that confidential documents disclosed by\\nPrivCo and Congress “revealed” the defendants “knew, but\\nfailed to disclose to plaintiffs and the Class, material infor-\\nmation” concerning Fisker’s production delays. Quoting the\\nPrivCo Report, plaintiffs claim defendants “kept Fisker’s\\ntroubles secret” and concealed Fisker’s cash crisis and\\nmismanagement while attracting new investors. Plaintiffs\\nalleged that defendants secured over $800 million through\\nfraud by disseminating materially false and misleading infor-\\nmation to rescue Kleiner Perkins from its “bad bet” on Fisker.\\n Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as\\nbarred by Illinois’s three-year statute of limitations, 815 ILL.\\nCOMP. STAT. 5/13(D), for securities-based claims. Defendants\\nargued the notices provided by PrivCo and Congress\\noccurred in April 2013, but plaintiffs waited more than three\\nyears to file their complaint in October 2016. The district court\\n\\f6 No. 18-1815\\n\\nagreed and granted defendants’ motion based upon plain-\\ntiffs’ “straightforward factual disclosures” regarding the\\nPrivCo Report and at the congressional hearings. To the\\ndistrict court, these disclosures demonstrated plaintiffs must\\nat a minimum have known facts that, in the exercise of\\nreasonable diligence, would have led to actual knowledge of\\ntheir claims.\\n Although the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint\\nas untimely, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend if they\\nwished “to expressly contradict the court’s conclusion about\\nthe dates that they learned of the facts that would lead them\\nto their claims.”\\n C\\n Plaintiffs accepted the district court’s invitation and\\namended their complaint in three ways. First, they deleted all\\nreferences to the PrivCo Report and congressional hearings.\\nSecond, they asserted Delaware rather than Illinois law\\ncontrols this case under choice of law provisions within\\ncertain Fisker securities purchase agreements. Third, they\\nclaimed they first learned of the defendants’ purported\\nwrongdoing on December 27, 2013, after an action was\\nbrought in Delaware by separate investor plaintiffs against\\nsome of the same defendants here. 2\\n Defendants moved again for dismissal and judgment on\\nthe pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\nand (c). They argued plaintiffs’ amended complaint suffers\\nfrom the same infirmities as the original and that the lawsuit\\n\\n 2 The Delaware plaintiffs raised the same core allegations as the plain-\\n\\ntiffs here, relied on the same information derived from the PrivCo Report\\nand congressional hearings, and were represented by the same counsel.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 7\\n\\nremains time-barred. The district court agreed, and\\nconcluded that plaintiffs’ claims came under Illinois law,\\nregardless of plaintiffs’ contention that Delaware law should\\napply.\\n The district court also ruled that plaintiffs’ amended\\ncomplaint failed to cure the fundamental problem with their\\noriginal complaint, which affirmatively pleaded plaintiffs\\nhad notice of their claims in April 2013. After the first dismis-\\nsal, the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend to “expressly\\ncontradict” its finding that plaintiffs learned of facts in April\\n2013 that would lead them to their claims. But rather than\\nrebut the court’s finding, plaintiffs just deleted all references\\nto the PrivCo Report or congressional hearings from their\\namended complaint. Because this information was not contra-\\ndicted in the amended complaint, the court reaffirmed its\\nprevious conclusion that Illinois’s three-year statute of limita-\\ntions for securities law claims barred plaintiffs’ action, and\\ndismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.\\n II\\n We review de novo a district court’s order granting a Rule\\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.\\nIndep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934\\n(7th Cir. 2012). We similarly review de novo a district court’s\\ngrant of judgment under Rule 12(c). Milwaukee Police Ass'n v.\\nFlynn, 863 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Brooks v. Ross,\\n578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that practical effect of\\naddressing a statute of limitations defense in Rule 12(c)\\nmotion is same as addressing it in Rule 12(b)(6) motion).\\n Where a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish a\\nstatute of limitations defense, the district court may dismiss\\n\\f8 No. 18-1815\\n\\nthe complaint on that ground. O'Gorman v. City of Chicago,\\n777 F.3d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 2015); Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. GN\\nHoldings, Inc., 67 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the context\\nof securities litigation, if a plaintiff pleads facts that show its\\nsuit [is] barred by a statute of limitations, it may plead itself\\nout of court under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.”). In performing\\nour review, we take the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true\\nand give them the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Whirl-\\npool Fin. Corp., 67 F.3d at 608. We may also take judicial notice\\nof matters of public record and consider documents\\nincorporated by reference in the pleadings. Milwaukee\\nPolice Ass’n, 863 F.3d at 640.\\n The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as precluded\\nby Illinois securities law’s three-year statute of limitations. On\\nappeal, we decide whether that limitations period applies,\\nand if so, whether it has expired.\\n A\\n A district court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies\\nthe statute of limitations of the forum state, Klein v. George G.\\nKerasotes Corp., 500 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2007), in this case\\nIllinois.\\n Plaintiffs argue otherwise. Despite bringing securities-\\nbased claims, they contend the Illinois securities laws do not\\ngovern their lawsuit. They argue choice of law provisions\\ncontained in some (but not all) of the Fisker securities\\npurchase agreements they executed required them to pursue\\ntheir claims under Delaware law. Plaintiffs posit that because\\nthey are precluded from any remedies under the Illinois\\nsecurities law, they cannot be subject to its three-year statute\\nof limitations, and thus that their lawsuit must be governed\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 9\\n\\nby Illinois’s five-year statute of limitations for “civil actions\\nnot otherwise provided for.” See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT.\\n5/13-205.\\n Plaintiffs’ argument is ambitious, but not supported by\\nlaw. As an initial matter, choice of law provisions did not bind\\nthe plaintiffs. Nor do choice of law provisions automatically\\nforeclose the application of a forum state’s laws. Rather,\\nchoice of law issues may be waived or forfeited by declining\\nto assert them in litigation. See McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables,\\nInc., 760 F.3d 674, 684 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The choice of law issue\\nmay be waived … if a party fails to assert it.”); see also Vukadi-\\nnovich v. McCarthy, 59 F.3d 58, 62 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that\\nchoice of law is “normally” waivable). Plaintiffs were likewise\\nfree to waive the Delaware choice of law provisions they now\\ninvoke. Further, the Illinois three-year statute of limitations\\napplies to all actions “brought for relief under [the Illinois\\nsecurities laws] or upon or because of any of the matters for\\nwhich relief is granted.” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). Thus,\\n“claims that do not directly invoke the [Illinois securities\\nlaws] may still fall within its statute of limitations,” including\\nDelaware common law claims, like those plaintiffs assert.\\nKlein, 500 F.3d at 671 (citing Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,\\n678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)).\\n In Tregenza, an investor plaintiff raised the same types of\\nclaims as plaintiffs here—common law causes of action for\\nbreach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresenta-\\ntion arising out of the purchase of securities. The Illinois Ap-\\npellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the investor’s claims\\nand held that they triggered the three-year statute of limita-\\ntions because “[they] are reliant ‘upon … matters for which\\n\\f10 No. 18-1815\\n\\nrelief is granted’ by the Securities Law.” Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d\\nat 15 (quoting 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)).\\n We applied the same reasoning in Klein to conclude the\\nIllinois securities laws governed the plaintiff’s claims.\\n500 F.3d at 672–74 (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for\\ncommon law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive\\ndamages as untimely under the Illinois securities laws). 3 In\\nKlein, we held that whether a plaintiff’s claim amounts to an\\naction for relief under the Illinois securities law, or upon or\\nbecause of any of the matters for which relief is granted by the\\nsecurities law, depends on what acts are encompassed within\\nthe securities law. Id. at 672; see also 815 ILL. COMP. STAT.\\n5/13(D); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 824 F. Supp.\\n2d 1164, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (interpreting same Illinois stat-\\nute) (“The Court need not look past the plain language of the\\nstatute to conclude that the ‘matters for which relief is\\ngranted’ refers to the conduct giving rise to a suit rather than\\nthe procedural question of whether an [Illinois securities law]\\nsuit is allowed in a particular case.”)\\n Illinois’s securities laws expressly prohibit the types of\\nmisconduct alleged by plaintiffs and provide remedies there-\\nfor. Plaintiffs claim defendants concealed material infor-\\nmation and made knowingly false statements regarding\\nFisker’s operational and financial conditions in connection\\nwith the sale of Fisker securities. Such conduct is prohibited\\n\\n 3Before 2013, the Illinois securities laws contained a five-year statute\\nof repose, which applied to any “action … brought for relief under this\\nSection or upon or because of any of the matters for which relief is granted\\nby this Section.” See 2013 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 98–174 § 13(D) (West). In\\ndeciding whether the former statute of repose applied to the claims in\\nKlein, we interpreted the same statutes as here.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 11\\n\\nunder Illinois securities laws sections 5/12(F) (prohibiting\\nfraud and deceit in connection with the sale of securities),\\n5/12(G) (prohibiting the sale of securities by means of untrue\\nor misleading statements), and 5/12(I) (prohibiting any\\ndevice, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with the\\nsale of securities). See 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/12. Section 13 of\\nthis statute provides remedies for the conduct prohibited in\\nthese statutes. Likewise, its three-year statute of limitations\\nexpressly applies to their violation. So under Klein, plaintiffs\\nhave pleaded acts encompassed within and governed by the\\nIllinois securities laws, which are governed by its limitation\\nperiod.\\n Plaintiffs contend that rather than Klein, Carpenter v. Exelon\\nEnterprises Co., LLC, 927 N.E.2d 768 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2010),\\ncontrols this case. Carpenter held that § 13 of the Illinois secu-\\nrities laws does not provide a remedy for common law claims\\nfor breach of fiduciary duty brought by sellers of securities.\\nId. at 774–77. Because the plaintiffs-sellers in Carpenter lacked\\na remedy under the Illinois securities laws, the Illinois Appel-\\nlate Court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations did\\nnot govern their claims. Id. at 777. But where Carpenter and\\nKlein separate—whether the Illinois securities laws provide a\\nremedy for stock sellers—is of no value to plaintiffs. The lack\\nof an available remedy in Carpenter was due to the Carpenter\\nplaintiffs’ status as stock sellers. Here, plaintiffs sue as\\npurchasers of Fisker securities, not sellers. The Illinois securi-\\nties laws expressly provide relief to securities purchasers. See\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(A) (specifying that those who par-\\nticipated or aided in selling a security in violation of the Illi-\\nnois securities laws are “joint and severally liable to the pur-\\nchaser,” including purchasers’ attorneys’ fees and expenses).\\n\\f12 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ position also suffers from forum shopping prob-\\nlems because the outcome they propose would reward a\\nstockholder who fails to bring suit in the appropriate state in\\na timely manner. To address this problem, plaintiffs cite\\nFerens v. John Deere Co. to show that forum shopping for a\\nmore favorable statute of limitations is permissible. 494 U.S.\\n516, 531 (1990) (applying Mississippi’s six-year statute of\\nlimitations to Pennsylvania claims after Pennsylvania’s two-\\nyear tort limitations period had expired). But here, unlike in\\nFerens, a more favorable statute of limitations law does not\\nexist. Plaintiffs concede that had they initiated their lawsuit in\\nDelaware under Delaware law, their claims would be subject\\nto a three-year statute of limitations. Likewise, had plaintiffs\\ninitiated their lawsuit in Illinois under Illinois law, the same\\nthree-year limit would be applied. Plaintiffs have offered no\\nauthority to support their contention that by suing in Illinois\\nunder Delaware law, parties get two additional years to sue.\\n Plaintiffs cannot avoid Illinois’s statute of limitations by\\nencasing their common law claims in a Delaware husk.\\nBecause the Illinois securities law’s three-year limitations\\nperiod controls in this case, Illinois’s residual five-year statute\\nof limitations does not apply. See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13-\\n205 (restricting five-year statute of limitations to “civil actions\\nnot otherwise provided for”); see also Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d at\\n15 (holding that the plaintiff’s action “is a cause otherwise\\nprovided for” under the Illinois securities law, and that five-\\nyear limitations period in § 5/13-205 is inapplicable) (internal\\nquotations omitted). The remaining question is whether\\nplaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 13\\n\\n B\\n Actions for relief under the Illinois securities laws must be\\nbrought within three years from the date of a security’s sale.\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). But if the party suing neither\\nknew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have\\nknown of any alleged violation of the Illinois securities law,\\nthe three-year period to sue for Illinois securities law claims\\nbegins to run the earlier of:\\n (1) the date upon which the party bringing the\\n action has actual knowledge of the alleged viola-\\n tion of this Act; or\\n (2) the date upon which the party bringing the\\n action has notice of facts which in the exercise of rea-\\n sonable diligence would lead to actual knowledge of\\n the alleged violation of this Act.\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(1)-(2) (emphases added).\\n Fisker securities were last sold to these plaintiffs in 2012.\\nYet plaintiffs’ amended complaint avers they did not know of\\nfacts concerning the defendants’ alleged violations until after\\nDecember 27, 2013, such that their October 14, 2016, original\\ncomplaint was timely filed. In its final dismissal order,\\nhowever, the district court found that the defendants’ alleged\\nfraud “was presented for the entire world to see no fewer than\\nthree times before October 14, 2013.” Applying an “inquiry\\nnotice” standard, the district court determined that PrivCo’s\\nand Congress’s April 2013 disclosures gave plaintiffs notice\\nof their potential claims. These findings were not rebutted,\\nand the district court concluded it was implausible that plain-\\ntiffs were first notified of facts leading to their claims later\\nthan April 2013.\\n\\f14 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s application of\\ninquiry notice to dismiss their claims. They argue the first\\nclause of 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(2) regarding “notice of\\nfacts” means “actual notice of facts,” not “inquiry notice.”\\nPlaintiffs note that “inquiry notice” does not appear in the\\nstatute. But plaintiffs’ position encounters two problems.\\nFirst, although the text of § 5/13(D)(2) does not include the\\nphrase “inquiry notice,” it also does not include “actual\\nnotice.” Plaintiffs ask us to supplant one omitted term for\\nanother, which leads to the second problem: if we agreed with\\nplaintiffs’ proposed interpretation, what constitutes “actual\\nnotice of facts” would be indistinguishable from “actual\\nknowledge,” the triggering event contained in § 5/13(D)(1).\\nSuch a reading would render § 5/13(D)(1) redundant, which\\nviolates the surplusage canon of statutory construction.\\nANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW 176\\n(2012).\\n In contrast, the inquiry notice standard is consistent with\\n§ 5/13(D) and the cases interpreting this statute. Cf. Tregenza\\nv. Great Am. Commc’ns Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993)\\n(explaining that under “inquiry notice,” a statute of limita-\\ntions “begins to run when the victim of the alleged fraud\\nbecame aware of facts that would have led a reasonable per-\\nson to investigate whether he might have a claim”); Allstate\\nIns. Co., 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1182 (holding § 5/13(D) “appears to\\nbe very close to the California inquiry notice standard,” which\\n“requires only that a party be on notice that an injury was\\n‘caused by wrongdoing’ before the statute begins to run.”).\\n But here, we need not decide which notice standard\\napplies because plaintiffs’ suit is time-barred under the plain\\nlanguage of § 5/13(D). Applying the text of § 5/13(D) to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 15\\n\\ncase, plaintiffs must show they did not have notice of facts\\nthat, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, would lead to\\nactual knowledge of the defendants’ alleged violations on or\\nbefore October 14, 2013. They have failed to do so. Plaintiffs’\\noriginal complaint made more than fleeting references to the\\nApril 2013 PrivCo Report and ensuing congressional\\nhearings. They repeatedly pleaded these publications\\n“brought to light” and “revealed” the facts forming the bases\\nof their lawsuit. The PrivCo Report’s writing was not subtle.\\nIt characterized Fisker as “the most tragic venture capital-\\nbacked debacle in recent history” and alluded to fraud and\\nbreach of fiduciary duties as the cause of Fisker’s “breathtak-\\ning wreckage.” The PrivCo Report and congressional\\nhearings did more than stir up the possibility of a legal action;\\nthey provided plaintiffs a detailed litigation roadmap.\\n Red flags were not limited to disclosures by PrivCo and\\nCongress as provided in their original complaint. According\\nto plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2011 “a scandal\\nerupted concerning Solyndra, another green energy start up\\nwith DOE funding, and Fisker [] became a political issue\\ngiven its similar ties to DOE, becoming the subject of negative\\nstories on major news networks like ABC, CBS, and Fox, as\\nwell as major newspapers.” The amended complaint contin-\\nues that in early January 2012, Fisker executives notified\\ninvestors that “DOE refused to resume funding Fisker.” In\\nFebruary 2012, media reported that Fisker’s “cash crunch”\\nresulted in forced layoffs, in addition to reporting on Fisker’s\\nscaled back sales projections and automobile recalls. The\\nsame month, Fisker also informed its investors that it had\\nbecome “a political football” and that its negative press was\\n“a consequence of [] election year politics.” In August 2012,\\nFisker’s leadership wrote to stockholders explaining that\\n\\f16 No. 18-1815\\n\\nFisker “has been under a media microscope” and was “the\\ntarget of politically motivated PR attacks.”\\n “Scandals,” “negative stories,” “cash crunches,” product\\nrecalls, layoffs, “PR attacks,” nationwide portrayal as a polit-\\nical scapegoat, and cancellation of crucial federal funding—\\nall under the lens of a “media microscope”—are distressing\\nfacts for any stockholder. All of these signals occurred before\\nApril 2013 and were incorporated into plaintiffs’ amended\\ncomplaint.\\n Fisker was a sophisticated and speculative private equity\\ninvestment. Among plaintiffs, the lowest total investment\\nwas over $350,000, and the highest over $7,500,000. Yet even\\nan unsophisticated investor should have realized between\\nlate 2011 (when Fisker was correlated with Solyndra) and\\nApril 2013 (following the release of the PrivCo Report) that\\nsomething was wrong. Even assuming plaintiffs shut them-\\nselves off from media, a simple internet search of “Fisker” to\\ncheck on the status of their investment—as any reasonable\\ninvestor would do—would have revealed these troubling\\nfacts. Plaintiffs counter that defendants were especially\\nsophisticated and employed significant resources to conceal\\nFisker’s problems. The ominous facts plaintiffs detail in their\\namended complaint undercut this assertion. Even if plausible,\\nplaintiffs’ assertion expired once PrivCo and Congress\\npresented Fisker’s flaws to the public. Defendants could no\\nlonger conceal wrongdoings because, as plaintiffs expressly\\nconcede, PrivCo and Congress “revealed” and “brought to\\nlight” such wrongdoings as early as April 2013.\\n Finally, plaintiffs contend the district court improperly\\nconstrued allegations in their superseded original complaint\\nas judicial admissions. See 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 17\\n\\nF.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 2002) (“When a party has amended a\\npleading, allegations and statements in earlier pleadings are\\nnot considered judicial admissions.”). Plaintiffs insist that\\nallegations in a superseded complaint—here, references to the\\nPrivCo Report and congressional hearings—should be\\nignored.\\n An amended pleading does not operate as a judicial tabula\\nrasa. “Under some circumstances, a party may offer earlier\\nversions of its opponent's pleadings as evidence of the facts\\ntherein.” Id. In response, “the amending party may offer evi-\\ndence to rebut its superseded allegations.” Id. Consistent with\\nthis process, the district court granted plaintiffs leave to\\namend to rebut facts that they pleaded in their original com-\\nplaint showing their awareness of the defendants’ alleged\\nsecurities violations more than three years before filing. The\\ncourt provided plaintiffs the opportunity to expressly contra-\\ndict the court’s finding about when they learned of facts that\\nwould lead them to their claims. Rather than contradict those\\nfacts, plaintiffs simply deleted any references to them. A\\ndistrict court is not required to ignore its prior decision, or its\\nfindings supporting a dismissal and grant of leave to amend,\\nwhere, as here, the findings are based upon undisputed\\npublic information plaintiffs themselves brought before the\\ndistrict court.\\n A district court may judicially notice a fact that is not sub-\\nject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) “is generally known\\nwithin the trial court's territorial jurisdiction;” or (2) “can be\\naccurately and readily determined from sources whose accu-\\nracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R. EVID. 201(b);\\nsee also General Electric Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp.,\\n128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding same). Here, the\\n\\f18 No. 18-1815\\n\\ndistrict court considered the original complaint, as well as its\\n2017 opinion inviting plaintiffs to rebut their allegations of\\nnotice triggering the Illinois securities limitations period. “[I]f\\nthe finding taken from the prior proceeding is ‘not subject to\\nreasonable dispute,’ then the court has satisfied the eviden-\\ntiary criteria for judicial notice.” General Elec. Capital Corp., 128\\nF.3d at 1082; see also Watkins v. United States, 854 F.3d 947, 950\\n(7th Cir. 2017) (“Absent a claim that there is a plausible, good-\\nfaith basis to challenge the legitimacy of [a prior complaint],”\\nthe court is entitled to take judicial notice of a complaint and\\nits contents). That the PrivCo report exists, the Congressional\\nhearings transpired, and plaintiffs pleaded both facts in their\\noriginal complaint is beyond “reasonable dispute.” Accord-\\ningly, the district court permissibly considered these findings\\nin its second and final dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.\\n III\\n Plaintiffs’ case concerns matters for which the Illinois\\nsecurities laws grant relief, and therefore falls within its three-\\nyear statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims against the\\ndefendants accrued no later than April 2013, but they filed\\ntheir complaint in October 2016. Because plaintiffs failed to\\nbring this action within three years from the date their claims\\naccrued, their lawsuit was untimely filed and appropriately\\ndismissed.\\n AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356559/\", \"author_raw\": \"BRENNAN, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"WOOD"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"WOOD\": \", Chief\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579306/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Keith Daubenspeck\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1815\nORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n v.\n\nKEITH DAUBENSPECK, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n ____________________\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:16-cv-10849 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.\n ____________________\n\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\n ____________________\n\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\nBRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Hype and reality can be at odds.\nThis contrast arises often in postmortems on once-fashiona-\nble, now-failed investment securities. Hype can raise inves-\ntors’ hopes and, in turn, capital contributions. But when hype\naccelerates an investment’s market value beyond its actual\nworth, a financial bubble is formed.\n\f2 No. 18-1815\n\n Fisker Automotive, Inc. was such a bubble, bursting in\n2013. Plaintiffs, all purchasers of Fisker securities between\n2009 and 2012, assert various claims against defendants, each\nof whom played roles in Fisker’s early-stage financing, for\nallegedly misleading investors regarding Fisker’s intrinsic\nvalue and imminent collapse. 1 Illinois law provides remedies\nwhen securities are sold by means of deceptive and fraudu-\nlent practices. But like any civil action, such claims must be\ntimely filed. Our review does not explore the cause of or the\ndefendants’ alleged roles in Fisker’s failure. Rather, we decide\nwhether plaintiffs’ claims fall within the Illinois securities\nlaws, and if so whether their claims are time-barred by\nIllinois’s three-year statute of limitations for securities-based\nclaims.\n I\n A\n In 2008, Fisker, a manufacturer of luxury hybrid electric\ncars, began attracting substantial financing as part of a trend\nin venture capital investments toward green energy technol-\nogy start-ups. Investor enthusiasm was spurred by a $528.7\nmillion loan to Fisker from the U.S. Department of Energy,\nwhich offered direct financial support to manufacturers of\nclean energy vehicles and components. Under the loan’s\nterms, the Energy Department advanced Fisker $192 million.\n\n\n 1Plaintiffs-appellants are Orgone Capital III, LLC, David Burnidge,\nLincolnshire Fisker, LLC, Kenneth A. Steele, Jr., and Robert F. Steel, and\ndefendants-appellees are Fisker director Keith Daubenspeck, Fisker’s\nventure capital patron Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Kleiner Perkins’s\nmanaging partners Ray Lane and John Doerr, and Fisker’s lead invest-\nment banker Peter McDonnell.\n\fNo. 18-1815 3\n\nThe venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a\ndefendant here and a controlling shareholder of Fisker,\nassisted with negotiating and securing the loan to Fisker.\nPlaintiffs characterize Kleiner Perkins as “politically-con-\nnected” and a “pioneering titan” of Silicon Valley’s venture\ncapital industry, known for its “hugely successful early back-\ning of companies.”\n Support from the federal government and Kleiner Perkins\nwere not the only factors sparking investor interest. Celebri-\nties including tech-industry rainmakers and A-list movie\nstars invested in Fisker’s future. Media outlets from Wall\nStreet to Hollywood reported on these luminaries’ investment\nin and association with Fisker. Further fueling the excitement\nwas Fisker’s public competition with another emerging\nplayer in the electric vehicle market, Tesla, Inc.\n In 2009, before sales began on its first generation of vehi-\ncles, Fisker announced that beginning in 2012 or 2013 its\nsecond generation of vehicles would be built in Delaware.\nDelaware agreed to chip in $21.5 million in state subsidies and\nVice President Joe Biden and Delaware Governor Jack\nMarkell participated in Fisker’s media unveiling of this\neconomic collaboration. Riding this wave of publicity and\ncontributions, Fisker secured funding from additional\nventure capital firms and high net worth investors. These\ninvestors included the five plaintiffs at bar, who collectively\npurchased over $10 million in Fisker securities. By 2011, insti-\ntutional and individual investors had poured $1.1 billion into\nFisker, betting on its revenue potential and sustainability\nvalues.\n Fisker’s rise was rapid and highly publicized. So was its\nfall. In late 2011, Fisker began selling its flagship automobile.\n\f4 No. 18-1815\n\nBy August 2012, it stopped all manufacturing operations to\npreserve cash, and in April 2013, Fisker laid off 75% of its re-\nmaining workforce. That same month, the U.S. Government\nseized $21 million in cash from Fisker to fulfill its first loan\npayment. In September 2013, the Energy Department put\nFisker’s remaining unpaid loan amount (approximately $168\nmillion) out to bid at a public auction. In November 2013,\nFisker filed for bankruptcy protection. The bubble had burst,\nand lawsuits followed.\n B\n On October 14, 2016, these plaintiffs filed a class action\ncomplaint against the defendants alleging fraud, fraudulent\nconcealment of material information, breach of fiduciary\nduty, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with\ntheir purchases of Fisker securities. In the complaint, plain-\ntiffs referenced a report released on April 17, 2013, by a\nprivate research firm, PrivCo, entitled “FISKER\nAUTOMOTIVE’S ROAD TO RUIN: How a ‘Billion-Dollar\nStartup Became a Billion-Dollar Disaster’.” A press release\naccompanying this PrivCo Report opined Fisker may go\ndown as “the most tragic venture capital-backed debacle in\nrecent history” due to “[t]he sheer scale of investment capital\nand government loan money.” The PrivCo Report claimed\nthis money and capital was “squandered so rapidly and with\nso little to show for it that the wreckage is breathtaking.”\nAccording to plaintiffs, the PrivCo Report was supported by\nover 11,000 pages of documents exposing Fisker’s imminent\nbankruptcy and malfeasant management. The PrivCo Report\nalso highlighted production and financial data plaintiffs claim\ndefendants concealed.\n\fNo. 18-1815 5\n\n Plaintiffs’ original complaint also describes several\ncongressional hearings held in April 2013, one week after the\nPrivCo Report was published. Those hearings included testi-\nmony from both government and Fisker officials as part of a\ncongressional investigation of Fisker’s impending failure and\nthe loss of $192 million in taxpayer funds.\n The complaint details how the PrivCo Report and congres-\nsional hearings “brought to light” and “revealed the defend-\nants’ alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiffs pleaded “[t]he investi-\ngations by PrivCo and Congress revealed fraud and breach of\nfiduciary duties by, among others, [the defendants], in\nconnection with [d]efendants’ scheme to induce [p]laintiffs\nand the Class to purchase Fisker Automotive Securities while\nconcealing from them material adverse information.” Plain-\ntiffs also alleged that confidential documents disclosed by\nPrivCo and Congress “revealed” the defendants “knew, but\nfailed to disclose to plaintiffs and the Class, material infor-\nmation” concerning Fisker’s production delays. Quoting the\nPrivCo Report, plaintiffs claim defendants “kept Fisker’s\ntroubles secret” and concealed Fisker’s cash crisis and\nmismanagement while attracting new investors. Plaintiffs\nalleged that defendants secured over $800 million through\nfraud by disseminating materially false and misleading infor-\nmation to rescue Kleiner Perkins from its “bad bet” on Fisker.\n Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as\nbarred by Illinois’s three-year statute of limitations, 815 ILL.\nCOMP. STAT. 5/13(D), for securities-based claims. Defendants\nargued the notices provided by PrivCo and Congress\noccurred in April 2013, but plaintiffs waited more than three\nyears to file their complaint in October 2016. The district court\n\f6 No. 18-1815\n\nagreed and granted defendants’ motion based upon plain-\ntiffs’ “straightforward factual disclosures” regarding the\nPrivCo Report and at the congressional hearings. To the\ndistrict court, these disclosures demonstrated plaintiffs must\nat a minimum have known facts that, in the exercise of\nreasonable diligence, would have led to actual knowledge of\ntheir claims.\n Although the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint\nas untimely, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend if they\nwished “to expressly contradict the court’s conclusion about\nthe dates that they learned of the facts that would lead them\nto their claims.”\n C\n Plaintiffs accepted the district court’s invitation and\namended their complaint in three ways. First, they deleted all\nreferences to the PrivCo Report and congressional hearings.\nSecond, they asserted Delaware rather than Illinois law\ncontrols this case under choice of law provisions within\ncertain Fisker securities purchase agreements. Third, they\nclaimed they first learned of the defendants’ purported\nwrongdoing on December 27, 2013, after an action was\nbrought in Delaware by separate investor plaintiffs against\nsome of the same defendants here. 2\n Defendants moved again for dismissal and judgment on\nthe pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\nand (c). They argued plaintiffs’ amended complaint suffers\nfrom the same infirmities as the original and that the lawsuit\n\n 2 The Delaware plaintiffs raised the same core allegations as the plain-\n\ntiffs here, relied on the same information derived from the PrivCo Report\nand congressional hearings, and were represented by the same counsel.\n\fNo. 18-1815 7\n\nremains time-barred. The district court agreed, and\nconcluded that plaintiffs’ claims came under Illinois law,\nregardless of plaintiffs’ contention that Delaware law should\napply.\n The district court also ruled that plaintiffs’ amended\ncomplaint failed to cure the fundamental problem with their\noriginal complaint, which affirmatively pleaded plaintiffs\nhad notice of their claims in April 2013. After the first dismis-\nsal, the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend to “expressly\ncontradict” its finding that plaintiffs learned of facts in April\n2013 that would lead them to their claims. But rather than\nrebut the court’s finding, plaintiffs just deleted all references\nto the PrivCo Report or congressional hearings from their\namended complaint. Because this information was not contra-\ndicted in the amended complaint, the court reaffirmed its\nprevious conclusion that Illinois’s three-year statute of limita-\ntions for securities law claims barred plaintiffs’ action, and\ndismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.\n II\n We review de novo a district court’s order granting a Rule\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.\nIndep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934\n(7th Cir. 2012). We similarly review de novo a district court’s\ngrant of judgment under Rule 12(c). Milwaukee Police Ass'n v.\nFlynn, 863 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Brooks v. Ross,\n578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that practical effect of\naddressing a statute of limitations defense in Rule 12(c)\nmotion is same as addressing it in Rule 12(b)(6) motion).\n Where a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish a\nstatute of limitations defense, the district court may dismiss\n\f8 No. 18-1815\n\nthe complaint on that ground. O'Gorman v. City of Chicago,\n777 F.3d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 2015); Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. GN\nHoldings, Inc., 67 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the context\nof securities litigation, if a plaintiff pleads facts that show its\nsuit [is] barred by a statute of limitations, it may plead itself\nout of court under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.”). In performing\nour review, we take the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true\nand give them the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Whirl-\npool Fin. Corp., 67 F.3d at 608. We may also take judicial notice\nof matters of public record and consider documents\nincorporated by reference in the pleadings. Milwaukee\nPolice Ass’n, 863 F.3d at 640.\n The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as precluded\nby Illinois securities law’s three-year statute of limitations. On\nappeal, we decide whether that limitations period applies,\nand if so, whether it has expired.\n A\n A district court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies\nthe statute of limitations of the forum state, Klein v. George G.\nKerasotes Corp., 500 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2007), in this case\nIllinois.\n Plaintiffs argue otherwise. Despite bringing securities-\nbased claims, they contend the Illinois securities laws do not\ngovern their lawsuit. They argue choice of law provisions\ncontained in some (but not all) of the Fisker securities\npurchase agreements they executed required them to pursue\ntheir claims under Delaware law. Plaintiffs posit that because\nthey are precluded from any remedies under the Illinois\nsecurities law, they cannot be subject to its three-year statute\nof limitations, and thus that their lawsuit must be governed\n\fNo. 18-1815 9\n\nby Illinois’s five-year statute of limitations for “civil actions\nnot otherwise provided for.” See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT.\n5/13-205.\n Plaintiffs’ argument is ambitious, but not supported by\nlaw. As an initial matter, choice of law provisions did not bind\nthe plaintiffs. Nor do choice of law provisions automatically\nforeclose the application of a forum state’s laws. Rather,\nchoice of law issues may be waived or forfeited by declining\nto assert them in litigation. See McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables,\nInc., 760 F.3d 674, 684 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The choice of law issue\nmay be waived … if a party fails to assert it.”); see also Vukadi-\nnovich v. McCarthy, 59 F.3d 58, 62 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that\nchoice of law is “normally” waivable). Plaintiffs were likewise\nfree to waive the Delaware choice of law provisions they now\ninvoke. Further, the Illinois three-year statute of limitations\napplies to all actions “brought for relief under [the Illinois\nsecurities laws] or upon or because of any of the matters for\nwhich relief is granted.” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). Thus,\n“claims that do not directly invoke the [Illinois securities\nlaws] may still fall within its statute of limitations,” including\nDelaware common law claims, like those plaintiffs assert.\nKlein, 500 F.3d at 671 (citing Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,\n678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)).\n In Tregenza, an investor plaintiff raised the same types of\nclaims as plaintiffs here—common law causes of action for\nbreach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresenta-\ntion arising out of the purchase of securities. The Illinois Ap-\npellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the investor’s claims\nand held that they triggered the three-year statute of limita-\ntions because “[they] are reliant ‘upon … matters for which\n\f10 No. 18-1815\n\nrelief is granted’ by the Securities Law.” Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d\nat 15 (quoting 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)).\n We applied the same reasoning in Klein to conclude the\nIllinois securities laws governed the plaintiff’s claims.\n500 F.3d at 672–74 (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for\ncommon law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive\ndamages as untimely under the Illinois securities laws). 3 In\nKlein, we held that whether a plaintiff’s claim amounts to an\naction for relief under the Illinois securities law, or upon or\nbecause of any of the matters for which relief is granted by the\nsecurities law, depends on what acts are encompassed within\nthe securities law. Id. at 672; see also 815 ILL. COMP. STAT.\n5/13(D); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 824 F. Supp.\n2d 1164, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (interpreting same Illinois stat-\nute) (“The Court need not look past the plain language of the\nstatute to conclude that the ‘matters for which relief is\ngranted’ refers to the conduct giving rise to a suit rather than\nthe procedural question of whether an [Illinois securities law]\nsuit is allowed in a particular case.”)\n Illinois’s securities laws expressly prohibit the types of\nmisconduct alleged by plaintiffs and provide remedies there-\nfor. Plaintiffs claim defendants concealed material infor-\nmation and made knowingly false statements regarding\nFisker’s operational and financial conditions in connection\nwith the sale of Fisker securities. Such conduct is prohibited\n\n 3Before 2013, the Illinois securities laws contained a five-year statute\nof repose, which applied to any “action … brought for relief under this\nSection or upon or because of any of the matters for which relief is granted\nby this Section.” See 2013 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 98–174 § 13(D) (West). In\ndeciding whether the former statute of repose applied to the claims in\nKlein, we interpreted the same statutes as here.\n\fNo. 18-1815 11\n\nunder Illinois securities laws sections 5/12(F) (prohibiting\nfraud and deceit in connection with the sale of securities),\n5/12(G) (prohibiting the sale of securities by means of untrue\nor misleading statements), and 5/12(I) (prohibiting any\ndevice, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with the\nsale of securities). See 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/12. Section 13 of\nthis statute provides remedies for the conduct prohibited in\nthese statutes. Likewise, its three-year statute of limitations\nexpressly applies to their violation. So under Klein, plaintiffs\nhave pleaded acts encompassed within and governed by the\nIllinois securities laws, which are governed by its limitation\nperiod.\n Plaintiffs contend that rather than Klein, Carpenter v. Exelon\nEnterprises Co., LLC, 927 N.E.2d 768 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2010),\ncontrols this case. Carpenter held that § 13 of the Illinois secu-\nrities laws does not provide a remedy for common law claims\nfor breach of fiduciary duty brought by sellers of securities.\nId. at 774–77. Because the plaintiffs-sellers in Carpenter lacked\na remedy under the Illinois securities laws, the Illinois Appel-\nlate Court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations did\nnot govern their claims. Id. at 777. But where Carpenter and\nKlein separate—whether the Illinois securities laws provide a\nremedy for stock sellers—is of no value to plaintiffs. The lack\nof an available remedy in Carpenter was due to the Carpenter\nplaintiffs’ status as stock sellers. Here, plaintiffs sue as\npurchasers of Fisker securities, not sellers. The Illinois securi-\nties laws expressly provide relief to securities purchasers. See\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(A) (specifying that those who par-\nticipated or aided in selling a security in violation of the Illi-\nnois securities laws are “joint and severally liable to the pur-\nchaser,” including purchasers’ attorneys’ fees and expenses).\n\f12 No. 18-1815\n\n Plaintiffs’ position also suffers from forum shopping prob-\nlems because the outcome they propose would reward a\nstockholder who fails to bring suit in the appropriate state in\na timely manner. To address this problem, plaintiffs cite\nFerens v. John Deere Co. to show that forum shopping for a\nmore favorable statute of limitations is permissible. 494 U.S.\n516, 531 (1990) (applying Mississippi’s six-year statute of\nlimitations to Pennsylvania claims after Pennsylvania’s two-\nyear tort limitations period had expired). But here, unlike in\nFerens, a more favorable statute of limitations law does not\nexist. Plaintiffs concede that had they initiated their lawsuit in\nDelaware under Delaware law, their claims would be subject\nto a three-year statute of limitations. Likewise, had plaintiffs\ninitiated their lawsuit in Illinois under Illinois law, the same\nthree-year limit would be applied. Plaintiffs have offered no\nauthority to support their contention that by suing in Illinois\nunder Delaware law, parties get two additional years to sue.\n Plaintiffs cannot avoid Illinois’s statute of limitations by\nencasing their common law claims in a Delaware husk.\nBecause the Illinois securities law’s three-year limitations\nperiod controls in this case, Illinois’s residual five-year statute\nof limitations does not apply. See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13-\n205 (restricting five-year statute of limitations to “civil actions\nnot otherwise provided for”); see also Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d at\n15 (holding that the plaintiff’s action “is a cause otherwise\nprovided for” under the Illinois securities law, and that five-\nyear limitations period in § 5/13-205 is inapplicable) (internal\nquotations omitted). The remaining question is whether\nplaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed.\n\fNo. 18-1815 13\n\n B\n Actions for relief under the Illinois securities laws must be\nbrought within three years from the date of a security’s sale.\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). But if the party suing neither\nknew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have\nknown of any alleged violation of the Illinois securities law,\nthe three-year period to sue for Illinois securities law claims\nbegins to run the earlier of:\n (1) the date upon which the party bringing the\n action has actual knowledge of the alleged viola-\n tion of this Act; or\n (2) the date upon which the party bringing the\n action has notice of facts which in the exercise of rea-\n sonable diligence would lead to actual knowledge of\n the alleged violation of this Act.\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(1)-(2) (emphases added).\n Fisker securities were last sold to these plaintiffs in 2012.\nYet plaintiffs’ amended complaint avers they did not know of\nfacts concerning the defendants’ alleged violations until after\nDecember 27, 2013, such that their October 14, 2016, original\ncomplaint was timely filed. In its final dismissal order,\nhowever, the district court found that the defendants’ alleged\nfraud “was presented for the entire world to see no fewer than\nthree times before October 14, 2013.” Applying an “inquiry\nnotice” standard, the district court determined that PrivCo’s\nand Congress’s April 2013 disclosures gave plaintiffs notice\nof their potential claims. These findings were not rebutted,\nand the district court concluded it was implausible that plain-\ntiffs were first notified of facts leading to their claims later\nthan April 2013.\n\f14 No. 18-1815\n\n Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s application of\ninquiry notice to dismiss their claims. They argue the first\nclause of 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(2) regarding “notice of\nfacts” means “actual notice of facts,” not “inquiry notice.”\nPlaintiffs note that “inquiry notice” does not appear in the\nstatute. But plaintiffs’ position encounters two problems.\nFirst, although the text of § 5/13(D)(2) does not include the\nphrase “inquiry notice,” it also does not include “actual\nnotice.” Plaintiffs ask us to supplant one omitted term for\nanother, which leads to the second problem: if we agreed with\nplaintiffs’ proposed interpretation, what constitutes “actual\nnotice of facts” would be indistinguishable from “actual\nknowledge,” the triggering event contained in § 5/13(D)(1).\nSuch a reading would render § 5/13(D)(1) redundant, which\nviolates the surplusage canon of statutory construction.\nANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW 176\n(2012).\n In contrast, the inquiry notice standard is consistent with\n§ 5/13(D) and the cases interpreting this statute. Cf. Tregenza\nv. Great Am. Commc’ns Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993)\n(explaining that under “inquiry notice,” a statute of limita-\ntions “begins to run when the victim of the alleged fraud\nbecame aware of facts that would have led a reasonable per-\nson to investigate whether he might have a claim”); Allstate\nIns. Co., 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1182 (holding § 5/13(D) “appears to\nbe very close to the California inquiry notice standard,” which\n“requires only that a party be on notice that an injury was\n‘caused by wrongdoing’ before the statute begins to run.”).\n But here, we need not decide which notice standard\napplies because plaintiffs’ suit is time-barred under the plain\nlanguage of § 5/13(D). Applying the text of § 5/13(D) to this\n\fNo. 18-1815 15\n\ncase, plaintiffs must show they did not have notice of facts\nthat, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, would lead to\nactual knowledge of the defendants’ alleged violations on or\nbefore October 14, 2013. They have failed to do so. Plaintiffs’\noriginal complaint made more than fleeting references to the\nApril 2013 PrivCo Report and ensuing congressional\nhearings. They repeatedly pleaded these publications\n“brought to light” and “revealed” the facts forming the bases\nof their lawsuit. The PrivCo Report’s writing was not subtle.\nIt characterized Fisker as “the most tragic venture capital-\nbacked debacle in recent history” and alluded to fraud and\nbreach of fiduciary duties as the cause of Fisker’s “breathtak-\ning wreckage.” The PrivCo Report and congressional\nhearings did more than stir up the possibility of a legal action;\nthey provided plaintiffs a detailed litigation roadmap.\n Red flags were not limited to disclosures by PrivCo and\nCongress as provided in their original complaint. According\nto plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2011 “a scandal\nerupted concerning Solyndra, another green energy start up\nwith DOE funding, and Fisker [] became a political issue\ngiven its similar ties to DOE, becoming the subject of negative\nstories on major news networks like ABC, CBS, and Fox, as\nwell as major newspapers.” The amended complaint contin-\nues that in early January 2012, Fisker executives notified\ninvestors that “DOE refused to resume funding Fisker.” In\nFebruary 2012, media reported that Fisker’s “cash crunch”\nresulted in forced layoffs, in addition to reporting on Fisker’s\nscaled back sales projections and automobile recalls. The\nsame month, Fisker also informed its investors that it had\nbecome “a political football” and that its negative press was\n“a consequence of [] election year politics.” In August 2012,\nFisker’s leadership wrote to stockholders explaining that\n\f16 No. 18-1815\n\nFisker “has been under a media microscope” and was “the\ntarget of politically motivated PR attacks.”\n “Scandals,” “negative stories,” “cash crunches,” product\nrecalls, layoffs, “PR attacks,” nationwide portrayal as a polit-\nical scapegoat, and cancellation of crucial federal funding—\nall under the lens of a “media microscope”—are distressing\nfacts for any stockholder. All of these signals occurred before\nApril 2013 and were incorporated into plaintiffs’ amended\ncomplaint.\n Fisker was a sophisticated and speculative private equity\ninvestment. Among plaintiffs, the lowest total investment\nwas over $350,000, and the highest over $7,500,000. Yet even\nan unsophisticated investor should have realized between\nlate 2011 (when Fisker was correlated with Solyndra) and\nApril 2013 (following the release of the PrivCo Report) that\nsomething was wrong. Even assuming plaintiffs shut them-\nselves off from media, a simple internet search of “Fisker” to\ncheck on the status of their investment—as any reasonable\ninvestor would do—would have revealed these troubling\nfacts. Plaintiffs counter that defendants were especially\nsophisticated and employed significant resources to conceal\nFisker’s problems. The ominous facts plaintiffs detail in their\namended complaint undercut this assertion. Even if plausible,\nplaintiffs’ assertion expired once PrivCo and Congress\npresented Fisker’s flaws to the public. Defendants could no\nlonger conceal wrongdoings because, as plaintiffs expressly\nconcede, PrivCo and Congress “revealed” and “brought to\nlight” such wrongdoings as early as April 2013.\n Finally, plaintiffs contend the district court improperly\nconstrued allegations in their superseded original complaint\nas judicial admissions. See 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300\n\fNo. 18-1815 17\n\nF.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 2002) (“When a party has amended a\npleading, allegations and statements in earlier pleadings are\nnot considered judicial admissions.”). Plaintiffs insist that\nallegations in a superseded complaint—here, references to the\nPrivCo Report and congressional hearings—should be\nignored.\n An amended pleading does not operate as a judicial tabula\nrasa. “Under some circumstances, a party may offer earlier\nversions of its opponent's pleadings as evidence of the facts\ntherein.” Id. In response, “the amending party may offer evi-\ndence to rebut its superseded allegations.” Id. Consistent with\nthis process, the district court granted plaintiffs leave to\namend to rebut facts that they pleaded in their original com-\nplaint showing their awareness of the defendants’ alleged\nsecurities violations more than three years before filing. The\ncourt provided plaintiffs the opportunity to expressly contra-\ndict the court’s finding about when they learned of facts that\nwould lead them to their claims. Rather than contradict those\nfacts, plaintiffs simply deleted any references to them. A\ndistrict court is not required to ignore its prior decision, or its\nfindings supporting a dismissal and grant of leave to amend,\nwhere, as here, the findings are based upon undisputed\npublic information plaintiffs themselves brought before the\ndistrict court.\n A district court may judicially notice a fact that is not sub-\nject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) “is generally known\nwithin the trial court's territorial jurisdiction;” or (2) “can be\naccurately and readily determined from sources whose accu-\nracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R. EVID. 201(b);\nsee also General Electric Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp.,\n128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding same). Here, the\n\f18 No. 18-1815\n\ndistrict court considered the original complaint, as well as its\n2017 opinion inviting plaintiffs to rebut their allegations of\nnotice triggering the Illinois securities limitations period. “[I]f\nthe finding taken from the prior proceeding is ‘not subject to\nreasonable dispute,’ then the court has satisfied the eviden-\ntiary criteria for judicial notice.” General Elec. Capital Corp., 128\nF.3d at 1082; see also Watkins v. United States, 854 F.3d 947, 950\n(7th Cir. 2017) (“Absent a claim that there is a plausible, good-\nfaith basis to challenge the legitimacy of [a prior complaint],”\nthe court is entitled to take judicial notice of a complaint and\nits contents). That the PrivCo report exists, the Congressional\nhearings transpired, and plaintiffs pleaded both facts in their\noriginal complaint is beyond “reasonable dispute.” Accord-\ningly, the district court permissibly considered these findings\nin its second and final dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.\n III\n Plaintiffs’ case concerns matters for which the Illinois\nsecurities laws grant relief, and therefore falls within its three-\nyear statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims against the\ndefendants accrued no later than April 2013, but they filed\ntheir complaint in October 2016. Because plaintiffs failed to\nbring this action within three years from the date their claims\naccrued, their lawsuit was untimely filed and appropriately\ndismissed.\n AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Keith Daubenspeck\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________\\nNo. 18-1815\\nORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n v.\\n\\nKEITH DAUBENSPECK, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n ____________________\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:16-cv-10849 — Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Judge.\\n ____________________\\n\\n ARGUED SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n ____________________\\n\\n Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and\\nBRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\\n BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Hype and reality can be at odds.\\nThis contrast arises often in postmortems on once-fashiona-\\nble, now-failed investment securities. Hype can raise inves-\\ntors’ hopes and, in turn, capital contributions. But when hype\\naccelerates an investment’s market value beyond its actual\\nworth, a financial bubble is formed.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Fisker Automotive, Inc. was such a bubble, bursting in\\n2013. Plaintiffs, all purchasers of Fisker securities between\\n2009 and 2012, assert various claims against defendants, each\\nof whom played roles in Fisker’s early-stage financing, for\\nallegedly misleading investors regarding Fisker’s intrinsic\\nvalue and imminent collapse. 1 Illinois law provides remedies\\nwhen securities are sold by means of deceptive and fraudu-\\nlent practices. But like any civil action, such claims must be\\ntimely filed. Our review does not explore the cause of or the\\ndefendants’ alleged roles in Fisker’s failure. Rather, we decide\\nwhether plaintiffs’ claims fall within the Illinois securities\\nlaws, and if so whether their claims are time-barred by\\nIllinois’s three-year statute of limitations for securities-based\\nclaims.\\n I\\n A\\n In 2008, Fisker, a manufacturer of luxury hybrid electric\\ncars, began attracting substantial financing as part of a trend\\nin venture capital investments toward green energy technol-\\nogy start-ups. Investor enthusiasm was spurred by a $528.7\\nmillion loan to Fisker from the U.S. Department of Energy,\\nwhich offered direct financial support to manufacturers of\\nclean energy vehicles and components. Under the loan’s\\nterms, the Energy Department advanced Fisker $192 million.\\n\\n\\n 1Plaintiffs-appellants are Orgone Capital III, LLC, David Burnidge,\\nLincolnshire Fisker, LLC, Kenneth A. Steele, Jr., and Robert F. Steel, and\\ndefendants-appellees are Fisker director Keith Daubenspeck, Fisker’s\\nventure capital patron Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Kleiner Perkins’s\\nmanaging partners Ray Lane and John Doerr, and Fisker’s lead invest-\\nment banker Peter McDonnell.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 3\\n\\nThe venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a\\ndefendant here and a controlling shareholder of Fisker,\\nassisted with negotiating and securing the loan to Fisker.\\nPlaintiffs characterize Kleiner Perkins as “politically-con-\\nnected” and a “pioneering titan” of Silicon Valley’s venture\\ncapital industry, known for its “hugely successful early back-\\ning of companies.”\\n Support from the federal government and Kleiner Perkins\\nwere not the only factors sparking investor interest. Celebri-\\nties including tech-industry rainmakers and A-list movie\\nstars invested in Fisker’s future. Media outlets from Wall\\nStreet to Hollywood reported on these luminaries’ investment\\nin and association with Fisker. Further fueling the excitement\\nwas Fisker’s public competition with another emerging\\nplayer in the electric vehicle market, Tesla, Inc.\\n In 2009, before sales began on its first generation of vehi-\\ncles, Fisker announced that beginning in 2012 or 2013 its\\nsecond generation of vehicles would be built in Delaware.\\nDelaware agreed to chip in $21.5 million in state subsidies and\\nVice President Joe Biden and Delaware Governor Jack\\nMarkell participated in Fisker’s media unveiling of this\\neconomic collaboration. Riding this wave of publicity and\\ncontributions, Fisker secured funding from additional\\nventure capital firms and high net worth investors. These\\ninvestors included the five plaintiffs at bar, who collectively\\npurchased over $10 million in Fisker securities. By 2011, insti-\\ntutional and individual investors had poured $1.1 billion into\\nFisker, betting on its revenue potential and sustainability\\nvalues.\\n Fisker’s rise was rapid and highly publicized. So was its\\nfall. In late 2011, Fisker began selling its flagship automobile.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1815\\n\\nBy August 2012, it stopped all manufacturing operations to\\npreserve cash, and in April 2013, Fisker laid off 75% of its re-\\nmaining workforce. That same month, the U.S. Government\\nseized $21 million in cash from Fisker to fulfill its first loan\\npayment. In September 2013, the Energy Department put\\nFisker’s remaining unpaid loan amount (approximately $168\\nmillion) out to bid at a public auction. In November 2013,\\nFisker filed for bankruptcy protection. The bubble had burst,\\nand lawsuits followed.\\n B\\n On October 14, 2016, these plaintiffs filed a class action\\ncomplaint against the defendants alleging fraud, fraudulent\\nconcealment of material information, breach of fiduciary\\nduty, and negligent misrepresentation in connection with\\ntheir purchases of Fisker securities. In the complaint, plain-\\ntiffs referenced a report released on April 17, 2013, by a\\nprivate research firm, PrivCo, entitled “FISKER\\nAUTOMOTIVE’S ROAD TO RUIN: How a ‘Billion-Dollar\\nStartup Became a Billion-Dollar Disaster’.” A press release\\naccompanying this PrivCo Report opined Fisker may go\\ndown as “the most tragic venture capital-backed debacle in\\nrecent history” due to “[t]he sheer scale of investment capital\\nand government loan money.” The PrivCo Report claimed\\nthis money and capital was “squandered so rapidly and with\\nso little to show for it that the wreckage is breathtaking.”\\nAccording to plaintiffs, the PrivCo Report was supported by\\nover 11,000 pages of documents exposing Fisker’s imminent\\nbankruptcy and malfeasant management. The PrivCo Report\\nalso highlighted production and financial data plaintiffs claim\\ndefendants concealed.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 5\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ original complaint also describes several\\ncongressional hearings held in April 2013, one week after the\\nPrivCo Report was published. Those hearings included testi-\\nmony from both government and Fisker officials as part of a\\ncongressional investigation of Fisker’s impending failure and\\nthe loss of $192 million in taxpayer funds.\\n The complaint details how the PrivCo Report and congres-\\nsional hearings “brought to light” and “revealed the defend-\\nants’ alleged wrongdoings. Plaintiffs pleaded “[t]he investi-\\ngations by PrivCo and Congress revealed fraud and breach of\\nfiduciary duties by, among others, [the defendants], in\\nconnection with [d]efendants’ scheme to induce [p]laintiffs\\nand the Class to purchase Fisker Automotive Securities while\\nconcealing from them material adverse information.” Plain-\\ntiffs also alleged that confidential documents disclosed by\\nPrivCo and Congress “revealed” the defendants “knew, but\\nfailed to disclose to plaintiffs and the Class, material infor-\\nmation” concerning Fisker’s production delays. Quoting the\\nPrivCo Report, plaintiffs claim defendants “kept Fisker’s\\ntroubles secret” and concealed Fisker’s cash crisis and\\nmismanagement while attracting new investors. Plaintiffs\\nalleged that defendants secured over $800 million through\\nfraud by disseminating materially false and misleading infor-\\nmation to rescue Kleiner Perkins from its “bad bet” on Fisker.\\n Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint as\\nbarred by Illinois’s three-year statute of limitations, 815 ILL.\\nCOMP. STAT. 5/13(D), for securities-based claims. Defendants\\nargued the notices provided by PrivCo and Congress\\noccurred in April 2013, but plaintiffs waited more than three\\nyears to file their complaint in October 2016. The district court\\n\\f6 No. 18-1815\\n\\nagreed and granted defendants’ motion based upon plain-\\ntiffs’ “straightforward factual disclosures” regarding the\\nPrivCo Report and at the congressional hearings. To the\\ndistrict court, these disclosures demonstrated plaintiffs must\\nat a minimum have known facts that, in the exercise of\\nreasonable diligence, would have led to actual knowledge of\\ntheir claims.\\n Although the district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint\\nas untimely, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend if they\\nwished “to expressly contradict the court’s conclusion about\\nthe dates that they learned of the facts that would lead them\\nto their claims.”\\n C\\n Plaintiffs accepted the district court’s invitation and\\namended their complaint in three ways. First, they deleted all\\nreferences to the PrivCo Report and congressional hearings.\\nSecond, they asserted Delaware rather than Illinois law\\ncontrols this case under choice of law provisions within\\ncertain Fisker securities purchase agreements. Third, they\\nclaimed they first learned of the defendants’ purported\\nwrongdoing on December 27, 2013, after an action was\\nbrought in Delaware by separate investor plaintiffs against\\nsome of the same defendants here. 2\\n Defendants moved again for dismissal and judgment on\\nthe pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\nand (c). They argued plaintiffs’ amended complaint suffers\\nfrom the same infirmities as the original and that the lawsuit\\n\\n 2 The Delaware plaintiffs raised the same core allegations as the plain-\\n\\ntiffs here, relied on the same information derived from the PrivCo Report\\nand congressional hearings, and were represented by the same counsel.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 7\\n\\nremains time-barred. The district court agreed, and\\nconcluded that plaintiffs’ claims came under Illinois law,\\nregardless of plaintiffs’ contention that Delaware law should\\napply.\\n The district court also ruled that plaintiffs’ amended\\ncomplaint failed to cure the fundamental problem with their\\noriginal complaint, which affirmatively pleaded plaintiffs\\nhad notice of their claims in April 2013. After the first dismis-\\nsal, the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend to “expressly\\ncontradict” its finding that plaintiffs learned of facts in April\\n2013 that would lead them to their claims. But rather than\\nrebut the court’s finding, plaintiffs just deleted all references\\nto the PrivCo Report or congressional hearings from their\\namended complaint. Because this information was not contra-\\ndicted in the amended complaint, the court reaffirmed its\\nprevious conclusion that Illinois’s three-year statute of limita-\\ntions for securities law claims barred plaintiffs’ action, and\\ndismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.\\n II\\n We review de novo a district court’s order granting a Rule\\n12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.\\nIndep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 934\\n(7th Cir. 2012). We similarly review de novo a district court’s\\ngrant of judgment under Rule 12(c). Milwaukee Police Ass'n v.\\nFlynn, 863 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2017); see also Brooks v. Ross,\\n578 F.3d 574, 579 (7th Cir. 2009) (noting that practical effect of\\naddressing a statute of limitations defense in Rule 12(c)\\nmotion is same as addressing it in Rule 12(b)(6) motion).\\n Where a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish a\\nstatute of limitations defense, the district court may dismiss\\n\\f8 No. 18-1815\\n\\nthe complaint on that ground. O'Gorman v. City of Chicago,\\n777 F.3d 885, 889 (7th Cir. 2015); Whirlpool Fin. Corp. v. GN\\nHoldings, Inc., 67 F.3d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the context\\nof securities litigation, if a plaintiff pleads facts that show its\\nsuit [is] barred by a statute of limitations, it may plead itself\\nout of court under a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis.”). In performing\\nour review, we take the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true\\nand give them the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Whirl-\\npool Fin. Corp., 67 F.3d at 608. We may also take judicial notice\\nof matters of public record and consider documents\\nincorporated by reference in the pleadings. Milwaukee\\nPolice Ass’n, 863 F.3d at 640.\\n The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims as precluded\\nby Illinois securities law’s three-year statute of limitations. On\\nappeal, we decide whether that limitations period applies,\\nand if so, whether it has expired.\\n A\\n A district court exercising diversity jurisdiction applies\\nthe statute of limitations of the forum state, Klein v. George G.\\nKerasotes Corp., 500 F.3d 669, 671 (7th Cir. 2007), in this case\\nIllinois.\\n Plaintiffs argue otherwise. Despite bringing securities-\\nbased claims, they contend the Illinois securities laws do not\\ngovern their lawsuit. They argue choice of law provisions\\ncontained in some (but not all) of the Fisker securities\\npurchase agreements they executed required them to pursue\\ntheir claims under Delaware law. Plaintiffs posit that because\\nthey are precluded from any remedies under the Illinois\\nsecurities law, they cannot be subject to its three-year statute\\nof limitations, and thus that their lawsuit must be governed\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 9\\n\\nby Illinois’s five-year statute of limitations for “civil actions\\nnot otherwise provided for.” See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT.\\n5/13-205.\\n Plaintiffs’ argument is ambitious, but not supported by\\nlaw. As an initial matter, choice of law provisions did not bind\\nthe plaintiffs. Nor do choice of law provisions automatically\\nforeclose the application of a forum state’s laws. Rather,\\nchoice of law issues may be waived or forfeited by declining\\nto assert them in litigation. See McCoy v. Iberdrola Renewables,\\nInc., 760 F.3d 674, 684 (7th Cir. 2014) (“The choice of law issue\\nmay be waived … if a party fails to assert it.”); see also Vukadi-\\nnovich v. McCarthy, 59 F.3d 58, 62 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that\\nchoice of law is “normally” waivable). Plaintiffs were likewise\\nfree to waive the Delaware choice of law provisions they now\\ninvoke. Further, the Illinois three-year statute of limitations\\napplies to all actions “brought for relief under [the Illinois\\nsecurities laws] or upon or because of any of the matters for\\nwhich relief is granted.” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). Thus,\\n“claims that do not directly invoke the [Illinois securities\\nlaws] may still fall within its statute of limitations,” including\\nDelaware common law claims, like those plaintiffs assert.\\nKlein, 500 F.3d at 671 (citing Tregenza v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,\\n678 N.E.2d 14, 15 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)).\\n In Tregenza, an investor plaintiff raised the same types of\\nclaims as plaintiffs here—common law causes of action for\\nbreach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligent misrepresenta-\\ntion arising out of the purchase of securities. The Illinois Ap-\\npellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the investor’s claims\\nand held that they triggered the three-year statute of limita-\\ntions because “[they] are reliant ‘upon … matters for which\\n\\f10 No. 18-1815\\n\\nrelief is granted’ by the Securities Law.” Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d\\nat 15 (quoting 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)).\\n We applied the same reasoning in Klein to conclude the\\nIllinois securities laws governed the plaintiff’s claims.\\n500 F.3d at 672–74 (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for\\ncommon law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and punitive\\ndamages as untimely under the Illinois securities laws). 3 In\\nKlein, we held that whether a plaintiff’s claim amounts to an\\naction for relief under the Illinois securities law, or upon or\\nbecause of any of the matters for which relief is granted by the\\nsecurities law, depends on what acts are encompassed within\\nthe securities law. Id. at 672; see also 815 ILL. COMP. STAT.\\n5/13(D); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp., 824 F. Supp.\\n2d 1164, 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (interpreting same Illinois stat-\\nute) (“The Court need not look past the plain language of the\\nstatute to conclude that the ‘matters for which relief is\\ngranted’ refers to the conduct giving rise to a suit rather than\\nthe procedural question of whether an [Illinois securities law]\\nsuit is allowed in a particular case.”)\\n Illinois’s securities laws expressly prohibit the types of\\nmisconduct alleged by plaintiffs and provide remedies there-\\nfor. Plaintiffs claim defendants concealed material infor-\\nmation and made knowingly false statements regarding\\nFisker’s operational and financial conditions in connection\\nwith the sale of Fisker securities. Such conduct is prohibited\\n\\n 3Before 2013, the Illinois securities laws contained a five-year statute\\nof repose, which applied to any “action … brought for relief under this\\nSection or upon or because of any of the matters for which relief is granted\\nby this Section.” See 2013 Ill. Legis. Serv. P.A. 98–174 § 13(D) (West). In\\ndeciding whether the former statute of repose applied to the claims in\\nKlein, we interpreted the same statutes as here.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 11\\n\\nunder Illinois securities laws sections 5/12(F) (prohibiting\\nfraud and deceit in connection with the sale of securities),\\n5/12(G) (prohibiting the sale of securities by means of untrue\\nor misleading statements), and 5/12(I) (prohibiting any\\ndevice, scheme or artifice to defraud in connection with the\\nsale of securities). See 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/12. Section 13 of\\nthis statute provides remedies for the conduct prohibited in\\nthese statutes. Likewise, its three-year statute of limitations\\nexpressly applies to their violation. So under Klein, plaintiffs\\nhave pleaded acts encompassed within and governed by the\\nIllinois securities laws, which are governed by its limitation\\nperiod.\\n Plaintiffs contend that rather than Klein, Carpenter v. Exelon\\nEnterprises Co., LLC, 927 N.E.2d 768 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2010),\\ncontrols this case. Carpenter held that § 13 of the Illinois secu-\\nrities laws does not provide a remedy for common law claims\\nfor breach of fiduciary duty brought by sellers of securities.\\nId. at 774–77. Because the plaintiffs-sellers in Carpenter lacked\\na remedy under the Illinois securities laws, the Illinois Appel-\\nlate Court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations did\\nnot govern their claims. Id. at 777. But where Carpenter and\\nKlein separate—whether the Illinois securities laws provide a\\nremedy for stock sellers—is of no value to plaintiffs. The lack\\nof an available remedy in Carpenter was due to the Carpenter\\nplaintiffs’ status as stock sellers. Here, plaintiffs sue as\\npurchasers of Fisker securities, not sellers. The Illinois securi-\\nties laws expressly provide relief to securities purchasers. See\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(A) (specifying that those who par-\\nticipated or aided in selling a security in violation of the Illi-\\nnois securities laws are “joint and severally liable to the pur-\\nchaser,” including purchasers’ attorneys’ fees and expenses).\\n\\f12 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Plaintiffs’ position also suffers from forum shopping prob-\\nlems because the outcome they propose would reward a\\nstockholder who fails to bring suit in the appropriate state in\\na timely manner. To address this problem, plaintiffs cite\\nFerens v. John Deere Co. to show that forum shopping for a\\nmore favorable statute of limitations is permissible. 494 U.S.\\n516, 531 (1990) (applying Mississippi’s six-year statute of\\nlimitations to Pennsylvania claims after Pennsylvania’s two-\\nyear tort limitations period had expired). But here, unlike in\\nFerens, a more favorable statute of limitations law does not\\nexist. Plaintiffs concede that had they initiated their lawsuit in\\nDelaware under Delaware law, their claims would be subject\\nto a three-year statute of limitations. Likewise, had plaintiffs\\ninitiated their lawsuit in Illinois under Illinois law, the same\\nthree-year limit would be applied. Plaintiffs have offered no\\nauthority to support their contention that by suing in Illinois\\nunder Delaware law, parties get two additional years to sue.\\n Plaintiffs cannot avoid Illinois’s statute of limitations by\\nencasing their common law claims in a Delaware husk.\\nBecause the Illinois securities law’s three-year limitations\\nperiod controls in this case, Illinois’s residual five-year statute\\nof limitations does not apply. See 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13-\\n205 (restricting five-year statute of limitations to “civil actions\\nnot otherwise provided for”); see also Tregenza, 678 N.E.2d at\\n15 (holding that the plaintiff’s action “is a cause otherwise\\nprovided for” under the Illinois securities law, and that five-\\nyear limitations period in § 5/13-205 is inapplicable) (internal\\nquotations omitted). The remaining question is whether\\nplaintiffs’ lawsuit was timely filed.\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 13\\n\\n B\\n Actions for relief under the Illinois securities laws must be\\nbrought within three years from the date of a security’s sale.\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D). But if the party suing neither\\nknew nor in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have\\nknown of any alleged violation of the Illinois securities law,\\nthe three-year period to sue for Illinois securities law claims\\nbegins to run the earlier of:\\n (1) the date upon which the party bringing the\\n action has actual knowledge of the alleged viola-\\n tion of this Act; or\\n (2) the date upon which the party bringing the\\n action has notice of facts which in the exercise of rea-\\n sonable diligence would lead to actual knowledge of\\n the alleged violation of this Act.\\n815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(1)-(2) (emphases added).\\n Fisker securities were last sold to these plaintiffs in 2012.\\nYet plaintiffs’ amended complaint avers they did not know of\\nfacts concerning the defendants’ alleged violations until after\\nDecember 27, 2013, such that their October 14, 2016, original\\ncomplaint was timely filed. In its final dismissal order,\\nhowever, the district court found that the defendants’ alleged\\nfraud “was presented for the entire world to see no fewer than\\nthree times before October 14, 2013.” Applying an “inquiry\\nnotice” standard, the district court determined that PrivCo’s\\nand Congress’s April 2013 disclosures gave plaintiffs notice\\nof their potential claims. These findings were not rebutted,\\nand the district court concluded it was implausible that plain-\\ntiffs were first notified of facts leading to their claims later\\nthan April 2013.\\n\\f14 No. 18-1815\\n\\n Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s application of\\ninquiry notice to dismiss their claims. They argue the first\\nclause of 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/13(D)(2) regarding “notice of\\nfacts” means “actual notice of facts,” not “inquiry notice.”\\nPlaintiffs note that “inquiry notice” does not appear in the\\nstatute. But plaintiffs’ position encounters two problems.\\nFirst, although the text of § 5/13(D)(2) does not include the\\nphrase “inquiry notice,” it also does not include “actual\\nnotice.” Plaintiffs ask us to supplant one omitted term for\\nanother, which leads to the second problem: if we agreed with\\nplaintiffs’ proposed interpretation, what constitutes “actual\\nnotice of facts” would be indistinguishable from “actual\\nknowledge,” the triggering event contained in § 5/13(D)(1).\\nSuch a reading would render § 5/13(D)(1) redundant, which\\nviolates the surplusage canon of statutory construction.\\nANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW 176\\n(2012).\\n In contrast, the inquiry notice standard is consistent with\\n§ 5/13(D) and the cases interpreting this statute. Cf. Tregenza\\nv. Great Am. Commc’ns Co., 12 F.3d 717, 718 (7th Cir. 1993)\\n(explaining that under “inquiry notice,” a statute of limita-\\ntions “begins to run when the victim of the alleged fraud\\nbecame aware of facts that would have led a reasonable per-\\nson to investigate whether he might have a claim”); Allstate\\nIns. Co., 824 F. Supp. 2d at 1182 (holding § 5/13(D) “appears to\\nbe very close to the California inquiry notice standard,” which\\n“requires only that a party be on notice that an injury was\\n‘caused by wrongdoing’ before the statute begins to run.”).\\n But here, we need not decide which notice standard\\napplies because plaintiffs’ suit is time-barred under the plain\\nlanguage of § 5/13(D). Applying the text of § 5/13(D) to this\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 15\\n\\ncase, plaintiffs must show they did not have notice of facts\\nthat, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, would lead to\\nactual knowledge of the defendants’ alleged violations on or\\nbefore October 14, 2013. They have failed to do so. Plaintiffs’\\noriginal complaint made more than fleeting references to the\\nApril 2013 PrivCo Report and ensuing congressional\\nhearings. They repeatedly pleaded these publications\\n“brought to light” and “revealed” the facts forming the bases\\nof their lawsuit. The PrivCo Report’s writing was not subtle.\\nIt characterized Fisker as “the most tragic venture capital-\\nbacked debacle in recent history” and alluded to fraud and\\nbreach of fiduciary duties as the cause of Fisker’s “breathtak-\\ning wreckage.” The PrivCo Report and congressional\\nhearings did more than stir up the possibility of a legal action;\\nthey provided plaintiffs a detailed litigation roadmap.\\n Red flags were not limited to disclosures by PrivCo and\\nCongress as provided in their original complaint. According\\nto plaintiffs’ amended complaint, in late 2011 “a scandal\\nerupted concerning Solyndra, another green energy start up\\nwith DOE funding, and Fisker [] became a political issue\\ngiven its similar ties to DOE, becoming the subject of negative\\nstories on major news networks like ABC, CBS, and Fox, as\\nwell as major newspapers.” The amended complaint contin-\\nues that in early January 2012, Fisker executives notified\\ninvestors that “DOE refused to resume funding Fisker.” In\\nFebruary 2012, media reported that Fisker’s “cash crunch”\\nresulted in forced layoffs, in addition to reporting on Fisker’s\\nscaled back sales projections and automobile recalls. The\\nsame month, Fisker also informed its investors that it had\\nbecome “a political football” and that its negative press was\\n“a consequence of [] election year politics.” In August 2012,\\nFisker’s leadership wrote to stockholders explaining that\\n\\f16 No. 18-1815\\n\\nFisker “has been under a media microscope” and was “the\\ntarget of politically motivated PR attacks.”\\n “Scandals,” “negative stories,” “cash crunches,” product\\nrecalls, layoffs, “PR attacks,” nationwide portrayal as a polit-\\nical scapegoat, and cancellation of crucial federal funding—\\nall under the lens of a “media microscope”—are distressing\\nfacts for any stockholder. All of these signals occurred before\\nApril 2013 and were incorporated into plaintiffs’ amended\\ncomplaint.\\n Fisker was a sophisticated and speculative private equity\\ninvestment. Among plaintiffs, the lowest total investment\\nwas over $350,000, and the highest over $7,500,000. Yet even\\nan unsophisticated investor should have realized between\\nlate 2011 (when Fisker was correlated with Solyndra) and\\nApril 2013 (following the release of the PrivCo Report) that\\nsomething was wrong. Even assuming plaintiffs shut them-\\nselves off from media, a simple internet search of “Fisker” to\\ncheck on the status of their investment—as any reasonable\\ninvestor would do—would have revealed these troubling\\nfacts. Plaintiffs counter that defendants were especially\\nsophisticated and employed significant resources to conceal\\nFisker’s problems. The ominous facts plaintiffs detail in their\\namended complaint undercut this assertion. Even if plausible,\\nplaintiffs’ assertion expired once PrivCo and Congress\\npresented Fisker’s flaws to the public. Defendants could no\\nlonger conceal wrongdoings because, as plaintiffs expressly\\nconcede, PrivCo and Congress “revealed” and “brought to\\nlight” such wrongdoings as early as April 2013.\\n Finally, plaintiffs contend the district court improperly\\nconstrued allegations in their superseded original complaint\\nas judicial admissions. See 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 300\\n\\fNo. 18-1815 17\\n\\nF.3d 730, 736 (7th Cir. 2002) (“When a party has amended a\\npleading, allegations and statements in earlier pleadings are\\nnot considered judicial admissions.”). Plaintiffs insist that\\nallegations in a superseded complaint—here, references to the\\nPrivCo Report and congressional hearings—should be\\nignored.\\n An amended pleading does not operate as a judicial tabula\\nrasa. “Under some circumstances, a party may offer earlier\\nversions of its opponent's pleadings as evidence of the facts\\ntherein.” Id. In response, “the amending party may offer evi-\\ndence to rebut its superseded allegations.” Id. Consistent with\\nthis process, the district court granted plaintiffs leave to\\namend to rebut facts that they pleaded in their original com-\\nplaint showing their awareness of the defendants’ alleged\\nsecurities violations more than three years before filing. The\\ncourt provided plaintiffs the opportunity to expressly contra-\\ndict the court’s finding about when they learned of facts that\\nwould lead them to their claims. Rather than contradict those\\nfacts, plaintiffs simply deleted any references to them. A\\ndistrict court is not required to ignore its prior decision, or its\\nfindings supporting a dismissal and grant of leave to amend,\\nwhere, as here, the findings are based upon undisputed\\npublic information plaintiffs themselves brought before the\\ndistrict court.\\n A district court may judicially notice a fact that is not sub-\\nject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) “is generally known\\nwithin the trial court's territorial jurisdiction;” or (2) “can be\\naccurately and readily determined from sources whose accu-\\nracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” FED. R. EVID. 201(b);\\nsee also General Electric Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp.,\\n128 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding same). Here, the\\n\\f18 No. 18-1815\\n\\ndistrict court considered the original complaint, as well as its\\n2017 opinion inviting plaintiffs to rebut their allegations of\\nnotice triggering the Illinois securities limitations period. “[I]f\\nthe finding taken from the prior proceeding is ‘not subject to\\nreasonable dispute,’ then the court has satisfied the eviden-\\ntiary criteria for judicial notice.” General Elec. Capital Corp., 128\\nF.3d at 1082; see also Watkins v. United States, 854 F.3d 947, 950\\n(7th Cir. 2017) (“Absent a claim that there is a plausible, good-\\nfaith basis to challenge the legitimacy of [a prior complaint],”\\nthe court is entitled to take judicial notice of a complaint and\\nits contents). That the PrivCo report exists, the Congressional\\nhearings transpired, and plaintiffs pleaded both facts in their\\noriginal complaint is beyond “reasonable dispute.” Accord-\\ningly, the district court permissibly considered these findings\\nin its second and final dismissal of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.\\n III\\n Plaintiffs’ case concerns matters for which the Illinois\\nsecurities laws grant relief, and therefore falls within its three-\\nyear statute of limitations. Plaintiffs’ claims against the\\ndefendants accrued no later than April 2013, but they filed\\ntheir complaint in October 2016. Because plaintiffs failed to\\nbring this action within three years from the date their claims\\naccrued, their lawsuit was untimely filed and appropriately\\ndismissed.\\n AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":188,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579307,"string":"4,579,307"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"Johnnie Lee SAVORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CANNON, Sr., as Special Representative for Charles Cannon, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3543"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Rovner, Hamilton, Barrett\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17-3543\\n\\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\\net al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\\n I.\\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 3\\n\\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\\nare not part of this appeal.\\n\\f4 No. 17-3543\\n\\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\\n II.\\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 5\\n\\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\\n cious prosecution.\\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\\n\\f6 No. 17-3543\\n\\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\\n rized to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\\n district court must consider whether a judgment\\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\\n bar to the suit.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\\noriginal).\\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\\nplainly stated rule:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 7\\n\\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\\n\\f8 No. 17-3543\\n\\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\\nings.\\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 9\\n\\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\\n confinement, but only if he has previously\\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\\nbecause:\\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3543\\n\\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\\nalternate rule:\\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 11\\n\\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\", \"author\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\"}, {\"type\": \"dissent\", \"author\": \"Stevens\", \"text\": \"Stevens dissented in Spencer, but he approved Justice Souter’s\\nbasic premise: “Given the Court’s holding that petitioner does\\nnot have a remedy under the habeas statute, it is perfectly\\nclear, as Justice SOUTER explains, that he may bring an action\\nunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 25 n.8 (Stevens, J.,\\ndissenting).\\n The defendants contended in the district court and main-\\ntain on appeal that this dicta in concurring and dissenting\\nopinions, cobbled together, now formed a new majority,\\nessentially overruling footnote 10 in Heck. But it is axiomatic\\nthat dicta from a collection of concurrences and dissents may\\nnot overrule majority opinions. Cross v. United States, 892 F.3d\\n288, 303 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Unless and until a majority of the\\nCourt overrules the majority opinions in [two prior cases], they\\n\\f12 No. 17-3543\\n\\ncontinue to bind us.”). The Supreme Court may eventually\\nadopt Justice Souter’s view but it has not yet done so and we\\nare bound by Heck. Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American\\nExpress, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this\\nCourt has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on\\nreasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of\\nAppeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving\\nto this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”).\\nSee also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 752 n.2 (2004) (charac-\\nterizing as unsettled the position taken by Justice Souter in\\nHeck and by Justice Ginsburg in Spencer that “unavailability of\\nhabeas for other reasons may also dispense with the Heck\\nrequirement”).\\n The defendants also asserted below and continue to argue\\non appeal that this court has abrogated the rule in Heck, citing\\nfour cases: DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000);\\nSimpson v. Nickel, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2006); Burd v. Sessler,\\n702 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2012); and Whitfield v. Howard, 852 F.3d\\n656 (7th Cir. 2017). According to the defendants, those cases\\n“together sensibly hold an individual who is no longer in\\ncustody with no access to habeas corpus relief may bring a\\n§ 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a still stand-\\ning conviction without first satisfying the favorable termina-\\ntion rule of Heck.” Brief of Defendants-Appellees, at 7–8. As we\\njust explained, this court may not on its own initiative overturn\\ndecisions of the Supreme Court, and in fact none of the cited\\ncases overturned the core holding of Heck or purported to do\\nso.\\n In DeWalt, we considered whether a prisoner could bring\\na section 1983 claim related to the loss of his prison job when\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 13\\n\\nthe underlying disciplinary sanction had not been overturned\\nor invalidated. Because DeWalt did not challenge the fact or\\nduration of his confinement, a habeas petition was not the\\nappropriate vehicle for his claims. 224 F.3d at 617. DeWalt\\nchallenged only a condition of his confinement—namely, his\\nprison job—making a section 1983 claim the appropriate course\\nof action. Id. We summarized our holding with the rule “that\\nthe unavailability of federal habeas relief does not preclude a\\nprisoner from bringing a § 1983 action to challenge a condition\\nof his confinement that results from a prison disciplinary\\naction.” 224 F.3d at 618. We discussed Spencer and Heck only in\\nthe context of answering an open question, namely, “whether\\nHeck's favorable-termination requirement bars a prisoner’s\\nchallenge under § 1983 to an administrative sanction that does\\nnot affect the length of confinement.” 224 F.3d at 616. We\\nconcluded that it did not, a position later approved by the\\nSupreme Court. See Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 754 (noting that the\\nSeventh Circuit in DeWalt had taken the position that Heck did\\nnot apply to prison disciplinary proceedings in the absence of\\nany implication going to the fact or duration of the underlying\\nsentence, and concluding that because Muhammad had\\nsimilarly raised no claim on which habeas relief could have\\nbeen granted on any recognized theory, Heck’s favorable-\\ntermination requirement was inapplicable).\\n Simpson similarly addressed a claim by a prisoner related\\nto the conditions of his confinement rather than the lawfulness\\nof his conviction or duration of confinement. Simpson alleged\\nthat when he complained about prison staff, they retaliated\\nagainst him by issuing bogus conduct reports and arranging\\nfor him to be disciplined. 450 F.3d at 305. As a result, he was\\n\\f14 No. 17-3543\\n\\nsubjected to 300 days in segregation and lost twenty-five days\\nof recreation privileges. We reversed the district court’s\\ndismissal for failure to state a claim. The district court had\\nconcluded that, under Heck, Simpson could not bring a suit\\nthat was inconsistent with the findings of the prison disciplin-\\nary board unless a state court set those findings aside. We\\nreaffirmed the core holding of Heck, “that a prisoner whose\\ngrievance implies the invalidity of ongoing custody must seek\\nreview by collateral attack.” 450 F.3d at 306–07. But we also\\nnoted that Heck was not applicable to Simpson’s claims because\\n“neither disciplinary segregation nor a reduction in the amount\\nof recreation is a form of ‘custody’ under federal law.” 450 F.3d\\nat 307. Simpson was not bringing a claim that implied the\\ninvalidity of his underlying conviction or sentence and was\\ntherefore not subject to Heck’s favorable-termination require-\\nment. We noted that Muhammad and DeWalt established that:\\n the doctrine of Heck and Edwards is limited to\\n prisoners who are “in custody” as a result of the\\n defendants’ challenged acts, and who therefore\\n are able to seek collateral review. Take away the\\n possibility of collateral review and § 1983 be-\\n comes available. Simpson can’t obtain collateral\\n relief in either state or federal court, so he isn’t\\n (and never was) affected by Heck or Edwards.\\nSimpson, 450 F.3d at 307. Read out of context, we understand\\nhow this passage and other passages in Simpson confused the\\nissue in the district court. Some of this language could be read\\nto imply that the inability to obtain habeas relief because the\\nsentence has been served could relieve a section 1983 litigant\\nof Heck’s favorable-termination requirement. But Heck itself\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 15\\n\\nrejected that position and Muhammad made clear that the Court\\nhad not yet had an occasion to settle the minority views\\nexpressed in Heck and Spencer.\\n Neither Burd nor Whitfield support a contrary result. Burd\\nbrought a section 1983 suit for damages, alleging that prison\\nofficials deprived him of access to the prison library, which in\\nturn prevented him from preparing a timely motion to with-\\ndraw his guilty plea. Burd, 702 F.3d at 431. Burd asserted that\\nHeck did not apply to his claim because he would not necessar-\\nily have been successful in seeking to withdraw his plea. We\\nconcluded that the damages that Burd was seeking to recover\\nwere predicated on a successful challenge to his conviction,\\nand so Heck applied. 702 F.3d at 434–35. And “[t]he rule in Heck\\nforbids the maintenance of such a damages action until the\\nplaintiff can demonstrate his injury by establishing the\\ninvalidity of the underlying judgment.” We also rejected\\nBurd’s alternate theory, that he should be allowed to proceed\\nwith his section 1983 claim even though it implied that his\\nconviction was invalid because his sentence was fully dis-\\ncharged and habeas relief was unavailable to him. 702 F.3d at\\n435–36. But Burd had failed to pursue habeas relief when it\\nwas available to him during his time in custody. We therefore\\nheld “that Heck applies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have\\nsought collateral relief at an earlier time but declined the\\nopportunity and waited until collateral relief became unavail-\\nable before suing.” 702 F.3d at 436.\\n Whitfield addressed a unique factual scenario that bears no\\nresemblance to Savory’s case. Whitfield reaffirmed Heck, noting\\nthat in “section 1983 suits that did not directly seek immediate\\nor speedier release, but rather sought monetary damages that\\n\\f16 No. 17-3543\\n\\nwould call into question the validity of a conviction or term of\\nconfinement, … a prisoner has no claim under section 1983\\nuntil he receives a favorable decision on his underlying\\nconviction or sentence, such as through a reversal or grant of\\nhabeas corpus relief.” Whitfield, 852 F.3d at 661. Whitfield\\nsought damages under section 1983 for the retaliatory revoca-\\ntion of good time credits. 852 F.3d at 659. He sought collateral\\nreview while he was in prison (albeit in a manner we charac-\\nterized as not “procedurally perfect”), including a federal\\nhabeas claim, but was released from custody before his claims\\nwere resolved.\\n We found that Balisok rather than Heck most directly\\ngoverned Whitfield’s section 1983 claims. Whitfield, 852 F.3d at\\n663. Balisok addressed the claim of a state prisoner alleging due\\nprocess violations for procedures used in a disciplinary\\nhearing that resulted in a loss of “good-time” credits. Balisok,\\n520 U.S. at 643. The Balisok Court found that “[t]he principal\\nprocedural defect complained of by respondent would, if\\nestablished, necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation\\nof his good-time credits.” 520 U.S. at 646. But Balisok had not\\ndemonstrated that the result of the disciplinary hearing had\\nbeen set aside, and so the Court found his claim not cognizable\\nunder § 1983. 520 U.S. at 648.\\n We distinguished Balisok in Whitfield:\\n Had [Balisok] prevailed, the result of the disci-\\n plinary proceeding would have to have been set\\n aside. Whitfield, in contrast, is arguing that the\\n hearings should never have taken place at all,\\n because they were acts of retaliation for his\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 17\\n\\n exercise of rights protected by the First Amend-\\n ment. He has no quarrel with the procedures\\n used in the prison disciplinary system. He could\\n just as well be saying that a prison official mali-\\n ciously calculated an improper release date, or\\n “lost” the order authorizing his release in retali-\\n ation for protected activity. In short, the essence\\n of Whitfield’s complaint is the link between\\n retaliation and his delayed release; the fact that\\n disciplinary proceedings were the mechanism is\\n not essential. Balisok also took care to be precise,\\n when it held that the petitioner’s claim for\\n prospective injunctive relief could go forward\\n under section 1983, since it did not necessarily\\n imply anything about the loss of good-time\\n credits.\\nWhitfield, 852 F.3d at 663. Unlike Balisok, Whitfield was not\\nseeking to set aside the result of a process but rather was\\nclaiming that the process should not have occurred at all. And\\nunlike Burd, Whitfield had pursued collateral relief to the\\ndegree possible, until he was released from custody and the\\ndistrict court dismissed his habeas petition as moot. In\\nWhitfield, we thus addressed a fact scenario at the outer edges\\nof Balisok. It has little bearing on Savory’s claims, which lie at\\nthe core of Heck.\\n III.\\n We end where we began: Heck controls the result here.\\nSavory’s claims, which necessarily imply the invalidity of his\\nconviction, did not accrue until he was pardoned by the\\n\\f18 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois. His section 1983 action was therefore\\ntimely filed, and we reverse the district court’s judgment and\\nremand for further proceedings.\\n REVERSED AND REMANDED.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579307/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Johnnie Lee SAVORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CANNON, Sr., as Special Representative for Charles Cannon, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3543\n\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\n\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\net al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\n\n\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\n\f2 No. 17-3543\n\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\n I.\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\n\fNo. 17-3543 3\n\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\nare not part of this appeal.\n\f4 No. 17-3543\n\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\n II.\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\n\fNo. 17-3543 5\n\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\n cious prosecution.\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\n\f6 No. 17-3543\n\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\n rized to make such determination, or called into\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\n district court must consider whether a judgment\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\n bar to the suit.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\noriginal).\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\nplainly stated rule:\n\fNo. 17-3543 7\n\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\n of habeas corpus.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\n\f8 No. 17-3543\n\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\nings.\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\n\fNo. 17-3543 9\n\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\n confinement, but only if he has previously\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\nbecause:\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\n\f10 No. 17-3543\n\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\nalternate rule:\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\n\fNo. 17-3543 11\n\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Johnnie Lee SAVORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CANNON, Sr., as Special Representative for Charles Cannon, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17-3543\\n\\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\\net al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\\n I.\\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 3\\n\\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\\nare not part of this appeal.\\n\\f4 No. 17-3543\\n\\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\\n II.\\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 5\\n\\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\\n cious prosecution.\\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\\n\\f6 No. 17-3543\\n\\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\\n rized to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\\n district court must consider whether a judgment\\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\\n bar to the suit.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\\noriginal).\\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\\nplainly stated rule:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 7\\n\\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\\n\\f8 No. 17-3543\\n\\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\\nings.\\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 9\\n\\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\\n confinement, but only if he has previously\\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\\nbecause:\\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3543\\n\\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\\nalternate rule:\\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 11\\n\\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":189,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579341,"string":"4,579,341"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3543"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17-3543\\n\\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\\net al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\\n I.\\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 3\\n\\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\\nare not part of this appeal.\\n\\f4 No. 17-3543\\n\\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\\n II.\\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 5\\n\\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\\n cious prosecution.\\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\\n\\f6 No. 17-3543\\n\\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\\n rized to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\\n district court must consider whether a judgment\\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\\n bar to the suit.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\\noriginal).\\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\\nplainly stated rule:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 7\\n\\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\\n\\f8 No. 17-3543\\n\\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\\nings.\\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 9\\n\\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\\n confinement, but only if he has previously\\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\\nbecause:\\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3543\\n\\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\\nalternate rule:\\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 11\\n\\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\", \"author\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\"}, {\"type\": \"dissent\", \"author\": \"Stevens\", \"text\": \"Stevens dissented in Spencer, but he approved Justice Souter’s\\nbasic premise: “Given the Court’s holding that petitioner does\\nnot have a remedy under the habeas statute, it is perfectly\\nclear, as Justice SOUTER explains, that he may bring an action\\nunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 25 n.8 (Stevens, J.,\\ndissenting).\\n The defendants contended in the district court and main-\\ntain on appeal that this dicta in concurring and dissenting\\nopinions, cobbled together, now formed a new majority,\\nessentially overruling footnote 10 in Heck. But it is axiomatic\\nthat dicta from a collection of concurrences and dissents may\\nnot overrule majority opinions. Cross v. United States, 892 F.3d\\n288, 303 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Unless and until a majority of the\\nCourt overrules the majority opinions in [two prior cases], they\\n\\f12 No. 17-3543\\n\\ncontinue to bind us.”). The Supreme Court may eventually\\nadopt Justice Souter’s view but it has not yet done so and we\\nare bound by Heck. Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American\\nExpress, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this\\nCourt has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on\\nreasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of\\nAppeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving\\nto this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”).\\nSee also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 752 n.2 (2004) (charac-\\nterizing as unsettled the position taken by Justice Souter in\\nHeck and by Justice Ginsburg in Spencer that “unavailability of\\nhabeas for other reasons may also dispense with the Heck\\nrequirement”).\\n The defendants also asserted below and continue to argue\\non appeal that this court has abrogated the rule in Heck, citing\\nfour cases: DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000);\\nSimpson v. Nickel, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2006); Burd v. Sessler,\\n702 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2012); and Whitfield v. Howard, 852 F.3d\\n656 (7th Cir. 2017). According to the defendants, those cases\\n“together sensibly hold an individual who is no longer in\\ncustody with no access to habeas corpus relief may bring a\\n§ 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a still stand-\\ning conviction without first satisfying the favorable termina-\\ntion rule of Heck.” Brief of Defendants-Appellees, at 7–8. As we\\njust explained, this court may not on its own initiative overturn\\ndecisions of the Supreme Court, and in fact none of the cited\\ncases overturned the core holding of Heck or purported to do\\nso.\\n In DeWalt, we considered whether a prisoner could bring\\na section 1983 claim related to the loss of his prison job when\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 13\\n\\nthe underlying disciplinary sanction had not been overturned\\nor invalidated. Because DeWalt did not challenge the fact or\\nduration of his confinement, a habeas petition was not the\\nappropriate vehicle for his claims. 224 F.3d at 617. DeWalt\\nchallenged only a condition of his confinement—namely, his\\nprison job—making a section 1983 claim the appropriate course\\nof action. Id. We summarized our holding with the rule “that\\nthe unavailability of federal habeas relief does not preclude a\\nprisoner from bringing a § 1983 action to challenge a condition\\nof his confinement that results from a prison disciplinary\\naction.” 224 F.3d at 618. We discussed Spencer and Heck only in\\nthe context of answering an open question, namely, “whether\\nHeck's favorable-termination requirement bars a prisoner’s\\nchallenge under § 1983 to an administrative sanction that does\\nnot affect the length of confinement.” 224 F.3d at 616. We\\nconcluded that it did not, a position later approved by the\\nSupreme Court. See Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 754 (noting that the\\nSeventh Circuit in DeWalt had taken the position that Heck did\\nnot apply to prison disciplinary proceedings in the absence of\\nany implication going to the fact or duration of the underlying\\nsentence, and concluding that because Muhammad had\\nsimilarly raised no claim on which habeas relief could have\\nbeen granted on any recognized theory, Heck’s favorable-\\ntermination requirement was inapplicable).\\n Simpson similarly addressed a claim by a prisoner related\\nto the conditions of his confinement rather than the lawfulness\\nof his conviction or duration of confinement. Simpson alleged\\nthat when he complained about prison staff, they retaliated\\nagainst him by issuing bogus conduct reports and arranging\\nfor him to be disciplined. 450 F.3d at 305. As a result, he was\\n\\f14 No. 17-3543\\n\\nsubjected to 300 days in segregation and lost twenty-five days\\nof recreation privileges. We reversed the district court’s\\ndismissal for failure to state a claim. The district court had\\nconcluded that, under Heck, Simpson could not bring a suit\\nthat was inconsistent with the findings of the prison disciplin-\\nary board unless a state court set those findings aside. We\\nreaffirmed the core holding of Heck, “that a prisoner whose\\ngrievance implies the invalidity of ongoing custody must seek\\nreview by collateral attack.” 450 F.3d at 306–07. But we also\\nnoted that Heck was not applicable to Simpson’s claims because\\n“neither disciplinary segregation nor a reduction in the amount\\nof recreation is a form of ‘custody’ under federal law.” 450 F.3d\\nat 307. Simpson was not bringing a claim that implied the\\ninvalidity of his underlying conviction or sentence and was\\ntherefore not subject to Heck’s favorable-termination require-\\nment. We noted that Muhammad and DeWalt established that:\\n the doctrine of Heck and Edwards is limited to\\n prisoners who are “in custody” as a result of the\\n defendants’ challenged acts, and who therefore\\n are able to seek collateral review. Take away the\\n possibility of collateral review and § 1983 be-\\n comes available. Simpson can’t obtain collateral\\n relief in either state or federal court, so he isn’t\\n (and never was) affected by Heck or Edwards.\\nSimpson, 450 F.3d at 307. Read out of context, we understand\\nhow this passage and other passages in Simpson confused the\\nissue in the district court. Some of this language could be read\\nto imply that the inability to obtain habeas relief because the\\nsentence has been served could relieve a section 1983 litigant\\nof Heck’s favorable-termination requirement. But Heck itself\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 15\\n\\nrejected that position and Muhammad made clear that the Court\\nhad not yet had an occasion to settle the minority views\\nexpressed in Heck and Spencer.\\n Neither Burd nor Whitfield support a contrary result. Burd\\nbrought a section 1983 suit for damages, alleging that prison\\nofficials deprived him of access to the prison library, which in\\nturn prevented him from preparing a timely motion to with-\\ndraw his guilty plea. Burd, 702 F.3d at 431. Burd asserted that\\nHeck did not apply to his claim because he would not necessar-\\nily have been successful in seeking to withdraw his plea. We\\nconcluded that the damages that Burd was seeking to recover\\nwere predicated on a successful challenge to his conviction,\\nand so Heck applied. 702 F.3d at 434–35. And “[t]he rule in Heck\\nforbids the maintenance of such a damages action until the\\nplaintiff can demonstrate his injury by establishing the\\ninvalidity of the underlying judgment.” We also rejected\\nBurd’s alternate theory, that he should be allowed to proceed\\nwith his section 1983 claim even though it implied that his\\nconviction was invalid because his sentence was fully dis-\\ncharged and habeas relief was unavailable to him. 702 F.3d at\\n435–36. But Burd had failed to pursue habeas relief when it\\nwas available to him during his time in custody. We therefore\\nheld “that Heck applies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have\\nsought collateral relief at an earlier time but declined the\\nopportunity and waited until collateral relief became unavail-\\nable before suing.” 702 F.3d at 436.\\n Whitfield addressed a unique factual scenario that bears no\\nresemblance to Savory’s case. Whitfield reaffirmed Heck, noting\\nthat in “section 1983 suits that did not directly seek immediate\\nor speedier release, but rather sought monetary damages that\\n\\f16 No. 17-3543\\n\\nwould call into question the validity of a conviction or term of\\nconfinement, … a prisoner has no claim under section 1983\\nuntil he receives a favorable decision on his underlying\\nconviction or sentence, such as through a reversal or grant of\\nhabeas corpus relief.” Whitfield, 852 F.3d at 661. Whitfield\\nsought damages under section 1983 for the retaliatory revoca-\\ntion of good time credits. 852 F.3d at 659. He sought collateral\\nreview while he was in prison (albeit in a manner we charac-\\nterized as not “procedurally perfect”), including a federal\\nhabeas claim, but was released from custody before his claims\\nwere resolved.\\n We found that Balisok rather than Heck most directly\\ngoverned Whitfield’s section 1983 claims. Whitfield, 852 F.3d at\\n663. Balisok addressed the claim of a state prisoner alleging due\\nprocess violations for procedures used in a disciplinary\\nhearing that resulted in a loss of “good-time” credits. Balisok,\\n520 U.S. at 643. The Balisok Court found that “[t]he principal\\nprocedural defect complained of by respondent would, if\\nestablished, necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation\\nof his good-time credits.” 520 U.S. at 646. But Balisok had not\\ndemonstrated that the result of the disciplinary hearing had\\nbeen set aside, and so the Court found his claim not cognizable\\nunder § 1983. 520 U.S. at 648.\\n We distinguished Balisok in Whitfield:\\n Had [Balisok] prevailed, the result of the disci-\\n plinary proceeding would have to have been set\\n aside. Whitfield, in contrast, is arguing that the\\n hearings should never have taken place at all,\\n because they were acts of retaliation for his\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 17\\n\\n exercise of rights protected by the First Amend-\\n ment. He has no quarrel with the procedures\\n used in the prison disciplinary system. He could\\n just as well be saying that a prison official mali-\\n ciously calculated an improper release date, or\\n “lost” the order authorizing his release in retali-\\n ation for protected activity. In short, the essence\\n of Whitfield’s complaint is the link between\\n retaliation and his delayed release; the fact that\\n disciplinary proceedings were the mechanism is\\n not essential. Balisok also took care to be precise,\\n when it held that the petitioner’s claim for\\n prospective injunctive relief could go forward\\n under section 1983, since it did not necessarily\\n imply anything about the loss of good-time\\n credits.\\nWhitfield, 852 F.3d at 663. Unlike Balisok, Whitfield was not\\nseeking to set aside the result of a process but rather was\\nclaiming that the process should not have occurred at all. And\\nunlike Burd, Whitfield had pursued collateral relief to the\\ndegree possible, until he was released from custody and the\\ndistrict court dismissed his habeas petition as moot. In\\nWhitfield, we thus addressed a fact scenario at the outer edges\\nof Balisok. It has little bearing on Savory’s claims, which lie at\\nthe core of Heck.\\n III.\\n We end where we began: Heck controls the result here.\\nSavory’s claims, which necessarily imply the invalidity of his\\nconviction, did not accrue until he was pardoned by the\\n\\f18 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois. His section 1983 action was therefore\\ntimely filed, and we reverse the district court’s judgment and\\nremand for further proceedings.\\n REVERSED AND REMANDED.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579341/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3543\n\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\n\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\net al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\n\n\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\n\f2 No. 17-3543\n\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\n I.\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\n\fNo. 17-3543 3\n\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\nare not part of this appeal.\n\f4 No. 17-3543\n\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\n II.\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\n\fNo. 17-3543 5\n\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\n cious prosecution.\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\n\f6 No. 17-3543\n\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\n rized to make such determination, or called into\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\n district court must consider whether a judgment\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\n bar to the suit.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\noriginal).\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\nplainly stated rule:\n\fNo. 17-3543 7\n\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\n of habeas corpus.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\n\f8 No. 17-3543\n\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\nings.\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\n\fNo. 17-3543 9\n\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\n confinement, but only if he has previously\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\nbecause:\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\n\f10 No. 17-3543\n\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\nalternate rule:\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\n\fNo. 17-3543 11\n\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17-3543\\n\\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\\net al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\\n I.\\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 3\\n\\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\\nare not part of this appeal.\\n\\f4 No. 17-3543\\n\\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\\n II.\\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 5\\n\\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\\n cious prosecution.\\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\\n\\f6 No. 17-3543\\n\\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\\n rized to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\\n district court must consider whether a judgment\\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\\n bar to the suit.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\\noriginal).\\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\\nplainly stated rule:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 7\\n\\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\\n\\f8 No. 17-3543\\n\\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\\nings.\\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 9\\n\\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\\n confinement, but only if he has previously\\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\\nbecause:\\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3543\\n\\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\\nalternate rule:\\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 11\\n\\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":190,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579372,"string":"4,579,372"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3543"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17-3543\\n\\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\\net al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\\n I.\\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 3\\n\\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\\nare not part of this appeal.\\n\\f4 No. 17-3543\\n\\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\\n II.\\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 5\\n\\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\\n cious prosecution.\\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\\n\\f6 No. 17-3543\\n\\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\\n rized to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\\n district court must consider whether a judgment\\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\\n bar to the suit.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\\noriginal).\\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\\nplainly stated rule:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 7\\n\\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\\n\\f8 No. 17-3543\\n\\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\\nings.\\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 9\\n\\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\\n confinement, but only if he has previously\\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\\nbecause:\\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3543\\n\\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\\nalternate rule:\\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 11\\n\\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\", \"author\": \"Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner\"}, {\"type\": \"dissent\", \"author\": \"Stevens\", \"text\": \"Stevens dissented in Spencer, but he approved Justice Souter’s\\nbasic premise: “Given the Court’s holding that petitioner does\\nnot have a remedy under the habeas statute, it is perfectly\\nclear, as Justice SOUTER explains, that he may bring an action\\nunder 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 25 n.8 (Stevens, J.,\\ndissenting).\\n The defendants contended in the district court and main-\\ntain on appeal that this dicta in concurring and dissenting\\nopinions, cobbled together, now formed a new majority,\\nessentially overruling footnote 10 in Heck. But it is axiomatic\\nthat dicta from a collection of concurrences and dissents may\\nnot overrule majority opinions. Cross v. United States, 892 F.3d\\n288, 303 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Unless and until a majority of the\\nCourt overrules the majority opinions in [two prior cases], they\\n\\f12 No. 17-3543\\n\\ncontinue to bind us.”). The Supreme Court may eventually\\nadopt Justice Souter’s view but it has not yet done so and we\\nare bound by Heck. Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American\\nExpress, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“If a precedent of this\\nCourt has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on\\nreasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of\\nAppeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving\\nto this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.”).\\nSee also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 752 n.2 (2004) (charac-\\nterizing as unsettled the position taken by Justice Souter in\\nHeck and by Justice Ginsburg in Spencer that “unavailability of\\nhabeas for other reasons may also dispense with the Heck\\nrequirement”).\\n The defendants also asserted below and continue to argue\\non appeal that this court has abrogated the rule in Heck, citing\\nfour cases: DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000);\\nSimpson v. Nickel, 450 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2006); Burd v. Sessler,\\n702 F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2012); and Whitfield v. Howard, 852 F.3d\\n656 (7th Cir. 2017). According to the defendants, those cases\\n“together sensibly hold an individual who is no longer in\\ncustody with no access to habeas corpus relief may bring a\\n§ 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of a still stand-\\ning conviction without first satisfying the favorable termina-\\ntion rule of Heck.” Brief of Defendants-Appellees, at 7–8. As we\\njust explained, this court may not on its own initiative overturn\\ndecisions of the Supreme Court, and in fact none of the cited\\ncases overturned the core holding of Heck or purported to do\\nso.\\n In DeWalt, we considered whether a prisoner could bring\\na section 1983 claim related to the loss of his prison job when\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 13\\n\\nthe underlying disciplinary sanction had not been overturned\\nor invalidated. Because DeWalt did not challenge the fact or\\nduration of his confinement, a habeas petition was not the\\nappropriate vehicle for his claims. 224 F.3d at 617. DeWalt\\nchallenged only a condition of his confinement—namely, his\\nprison job—making a section 1983 claim the appropriate course\\nof action. Id. We summarized our holding with the rule “that\\nthe unavailability of federal habeas relief does not preclude a\\nprisoner from bringing a § 1983 action to challenge a condition\\nof his confinement that results from a prison disciplinary\\naction.” 224 F.3d at 618. We discussed Spencer and Heck only in\\nthe context of answering an open question, namely, “whether\\nHeck's favorable-termination requirement bars a prisoner’s\\nchallenge under § 1983 to an administrative sanction that does\\nnot affect the length of confinement.” 224 F.3d at 616. We\\nconcluded that it did not, a position later approved by the\\nSupreme Court. See Muhammad, 540 U.S. at 754 (noting that the\\nSeventh Circuit in DeWalt had taken the position that Heck did\\nnot apply to prison disciplinary proceedings in the absence of\\nany implication going to the fact or duration of the underlying\\nsentence, and concluding that because Muhammad had\\nsimilarly raised no claim on which habeas relief could have\\nbeen granted on any recognized theory, Heck’s favorable-\\ntermination requirement was inapplicable).\\n Simpson similarly addressed a claim by a prisoner related\\nto the conditions of his confinement rather than the lawfulness\\nof his conviction or duration of confinement. Simpson alleged\\nthat when he complained about prison staff, they retaliated\\nagainst him by issuing bogus conduct reports and arranging\\nfor him to be disciplined. 450 F.3d at 305. As a result, he was\\n\\f14 No. 17-3543\\n\\nsubjected to 300 days in segregation and lost twenty-five days\\nof recreation privileges. We reversed the district court’s\\ndismissal for failure to state a claim. The district court had\\nconcluded that, under Heck, Simpson could not bring a suit\\nthat was inconsistent with the findings of the prison disciplin-\\nary board unless a state court set those findings aside. We\\nreaffirmed the core holding of Heck, “that a prisoner whose\\ngrievance implies the invalidity of ongoing custody must seek\\nreview by collateral attack.” 450 F.3d at 306–07. But we also\\nnoted that Heck was not applicable to Simpson’s claims because\\n“neither disciplinary segregation nor a reduction in the amount\\nof recreation is a form of ‘custody’ under federal law.” 450 F.3d\\nat 307. Simpson was not bringing a claim that implied the\\ninvalidity of his underlying conviction or sentence and was\\ntherefore not subject to Heck’s favorable-termination require-\\nment. We noted that Muhammad and DeWalt established that:\\n the doctrine of Heck and Edwards is limited to\\n prisoners who are “in custody” as a result of the\\n defendants’ challenged acts, and who therefore\\n are able to seek collateral review. Take away the\\n possibility of collateral review and § 1983 be-\\n comes available. Simpson can’t obtain collateral\\n relief in either state or federal court, so he isn’t\\n (and never was) affected by Heck or Edwards.\\nSimpson, 450 F.3d at 307. Read out of context, we understand\\nhow this passage and other passages in Simpson confused the\\nissue in the district court. Some of this language could be read\\nto imply that the inability to obtain habeas relief because the\\nsentence has been served could relieve a section 1983 litigant\\nof Heck’s favorable-termination requirement. But Heck itself\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 15\\n\\nrejected that position and Muhammad made clear that the Court\\nhad not yet had an occasion to settle the minority views\\nexpressed in Heck and Spencer.\\n Neither Burd nor Whitfield support a contrary result. Burd\\nbrought a section 1983 suit for damages, alleging that prison\\nofficials deprived him of access to the prison library, which in\\nturn prevented him from preparing a timely motion to with-\\ndraw his guilty plea. Burd, 702 F.3d at 431. Burd asserted that\\nHeck did not apply to his claim because he would not necessar-\\nily have been successful in seeking to withdraw his plea. We\\nconcluded that the damages that Burd was seeking to recover\\nwere predicated on a successful challenge to his conviction,\\nand so Heck applied. 702 F.3d at 434–35. And “[t]he rule in Heck\\nforbids the maintenance of such a damages action until the\\nplaintiff can demonstrate his injury by establishing the\\ninvalidity of the underlying judgment.” We also rejected\\nBurd’s alternate theory, that he should be allowed to proceed\\nwith his section 1983 claim even though it implied that his\\nconviction was invalid because his sentence was fully dis-\\ncharged and habeas relief was unavailable to him. 702 F.3d at\\n435–36. But Burd had failed to pursue habeas relief when it\\nwas available to him during his time in custody. We therefore\\nheld “that Heck applies where a § 1983 plaintiff could have\\nsought collateral relief at an earlier time but declined the\\nopportunity and waited until collateral relief became unavail-\\nable before suing.” 702 F.3d at 436.\\n Whitfield addressed a unique factual scenario that bears no\\nresemblance to Savory’s case. Whitfield reaffirmed Heck, noting\\nthat in “section 1983 suits that did not directly seek immediate\\nor speedier release, but rather sought monetary damages that\\n\\f16 No. 17-3543\\n\\nwould call into question the validity of a conviction or term of\\nconfinement, … a prisoner has no claim under section 1983\\nuntil he receives a favorable decision on his underlying\\nconviction or sentence, such as through a reversal or grant of\\nhabeas corpus relief.” Whitfield, 852 F.3d at 661. Whitfield\\nsought damages under section 1983 for the retaliatory revoca-\\ntion of good time credits. 852 F.3d at 659. He sought collateral\\nreview while he was in prison (albeit in a manner we charac-\\nterized as not “procedurally perfect”), including a federal\\nhabeas claim, but was released from custody before his claims\\nwere resolved.\\n We found that Balisok rather than Heck most directly\\ngoverned Whitfield’s section 1983 claims. Whitfield, 852 F.3d at\\n663. Balisok addressed the claim of a state prisoner alleging due\\nprocess violations for procedures used in a disciplinary\\nhearing that resulted in a loss of “good-time” credits. Balisok,\\n520 U.S. at 643. The Balisok Court found that “[t]he principal\\nprocedural defect complained of by respondent would, if\\nestablished, necessarily imply the invalidity of the deprivation\\nof his good-time credits.” 520 U.S. at 646. But Balisok had not\\ndemonstrated that the result of the disciplinary hearing had\\nbeen set aside, and so the Court found his claim not cognizable\\nunder § 1983. 520 U.S. at 648.\\n We distinguished Balisok in Whitfield:\\n Had [Balisok] prevailed, the result of the disci-\\n plinary proceeding would have to have been set\\n aside. Whitfield, in contrast, is arguing that the\\n hearings should never have taken place at all,\\n because they were acts of retaliation for his\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 17\\n\\n exercise of rights protected by the First Amend-\\n ment. He has no quarrel with the procedures\\n used in the prison disciplinary system. He could\\n just as well be saying that a prison official mali-\\n ciously calculated an improper release date, or\\n “lost” the order authorizing his release in retali-\\n ation for protected activity. In short, the essence\\n of Whitfield’s complaint is the link between\\n retaliation and his delayed release; the fact that\\n disciplinary proceedings were the mechanism is\\n not essential. Balisok also took care to be precise,\\n when it held that the petitioner’s claim for\\n prospective injunctive relief could go forward\\n under section 1983, since it did not necessarily\\n imply anything about the loss of good-time\\n credits.\\nWhitfield, 852 F.3d at 663. Unlike Balisok, Whitfield was not\\nseeking to set aside the result of a process but rather was\\nclaiming that the process should not have occurred at all. And\\nunlike Burd, Whitfield had pursued collateral relief to the\\ndegree possible, until he was released from custody and the\\ndistrict court dismissed his habeas petition as moot. In\\nWhitfield, we thus addressed a fact scenario at the outer edges\\nof Balisok. It has little bearing on Savory’s claims, which lie at\\nthe core of Heck.\\n III.\\n We end where we began: Heck controls the result here.\\nSavory’s claims, which necessarily imply the invalidity of his\\nconviction, did not accrue until he was pardoned by the\\n\\f18 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois. His section 1983 action was therefore\\ntimely filed, and we reverse the district court’s judgment and\\nremand for further proceedings.\\n REVERSED AND REMANDED.\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":2,"string":"2"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579372/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3543\n\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n v.\n\n\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\net al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\n\n\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\n\f2 No. 17-3543\n\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\n I.\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\n\fNo. 17-3543 3\n\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\nare not part of this appeal.\n\f4 No. 17-3543\n\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\n II.\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\n\fNo. 17-3543 5\n\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\n cious prosecution.\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\n\f6 No. 17-3543\n\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\n rized to make such determination, or called into\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\n district court must consider whether a judgment\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\n bar to the suit.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\noriginal).\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\nplainly stated rule:\n\fNo. 17-3543 7\n\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\n of habeas corpus.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\n\f8 No. 17-3543\n\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\nings.\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\n\fNo. 17-3543 9\n\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\n confinement, but only if he has previously\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\nbecause:\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\n\f10 No. 17-3543\n\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\nalternate rule:\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\n\fNo. 17-3543 11\n\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: Yes\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 17-3543\\n\\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nWILLIAM CANNON, SR., as special\\nrepresentative for Charles Cannon,\\net al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 1:17-cv-00204 — Gary Feinerman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Johnnie Lee Savory spent thirty years\\nin prison for a 1977 double murder that he insists he did not\\ncommit. Even after his release from prison, he continued to\\nassert his innocence. Thirty-eight years after his conviction, the\\n\\f2 No. 17-3543\\n\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned Savory. Nearly two years after\\nthe pardon, Savory filed a civil rights suit against the City of\\nPeoria (“City”) and a number of Peoria police officers alleging\\nthat they framed him. The district court dismissed the suit as\\nuntimely. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.\\n I.\\n In January 1977, Peoria police officers arrested fourteen-\\nyear-old Savory for the rape and murder of nineteen-year-old\\nConnie Cooper and the murder of her fourteen-year-old\\nbrother, James Robinson. According to Savory’s complaint,\\nwhich we must credit when assessing a motion to dismiss\\nunder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), these officers\\nsubjected Savory to an abusive thirty-one hour interrogation\\nover a two-day period. Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 645 (7th\\nCir. 2018) (in reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion\\nto dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we accept as true all\\nwell-pleaded facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor\\nof the non-moving party). The officers fabricated evidence,\\nwrongfully coerced a false confession from the teen, sup-\\npressed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated\\nhim, fabricated incriminating statements from alleged wit-\\nnesses, and ignored ample evidence pointing to other suspects.\\nNo legitimate evidence implicated Savory. His arrest, prosecu-\\ntion and conviction were based entirely on the officers’\\nfabricated evidence and illegally extracted false confession.\\n Savory was tried as an adult in 1977 and convicted of first\\ndegree murder. After that conviction was overturned on\\nappeal, he was convicted again in 1981. He was sentenced to a\\nterm of forty to eighty years in prison. After Savory exhausted\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 3\\n\\ndirect appeals and post-conviction remedies in state court, he\\nunsuccessfully sought federal habeas corpus relief. He repeat-\\nedly petitioned for clemency and also sought DNA testing.\\nAfter thirty years in prison, he was paroled in December 2006.\\nFive years later, in December 2011, the governor of Illinois\\ncommuted the remainder of Savory’s sentence. That action\\nterminated his parole (and therefore his custody) but left his\\nconviction intact. On January 12, 2015, the governor issued a\\npardon that “acquitted and discharged” Savory’s conviction.\\nOn January 11, 2017, less than two years after the pardon,\\nSavory filed suit against the City and the police officers.\\n That suit asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, five\\nagainst the individual defendants and one against the City. The\\nfive counts against the individual defendants alleged that they:\\n(1) coerced a false confession from Savory in violation of the\\nFifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2) coerced a false confes-\\nsion from Savory in violation of his due process rights under\\nthe Fourteenth Amendment; (3) maliciously prosecuted\\nSavory, depriving him of liberty without probable cause in\\nviolation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\n(4) violated his right to be free of involuntary confinement and\\nservitude under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments;\\nand (5) failed to intervene as their fellow officers violated\\nSavory’s civil rights. In the sixth count, Savory alleged that the\\nCity’s unlawful policies, practices and customs led to his\\nwrongful conviction and imprisonment in violation of section\\n1983. Savory also brought state law claims against the defen-\\ndants but later conceded that those claims were untimely\\nunder the state’s one-year statute of limitations. Those claims\\nare not part of this appeal.\\n\\f4 No. 17-3543\\n\\n The defendants moved to dismiss Savory’s section 1983\\nclaims on several grounds but the district court addressed only\\none: the statute of limitations. The court recognized that, under\\nHeck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Savory could not bring\\nhis section 1983 claims unless and until he obtained a favorable\\ntermination of a challenge to his conviction. The parties agreed\\nthat the relevant statute of limitations required Savory to bring\\nhis claims within two years of accrual but the parties disagreed\\non when the Heck bar lifted. Savory asserted that his claims did\\nnot accrue until he received a pardon from the Illinois gover-\\nnor on January 12, 2015, which would make his January 11,\\n2017 suit timely. The defendants asserted that the Heck bar\\nlifted when Savory’s parole was terminated on December 6,\\n2011, making his claims untimely. The district court concluded\\nthat the defendants had the better view of Heck and dismissed\\nthe claims with prejudice. Savory appeals.\\n II.\\n We review de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute of\\nlimitations grounds. Tobey, 890 F.3d at 645; Amin Ijbara Equity\\nCorp. v. Village of Oak Lawn, 860 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2017).\\nOur analysis begins and ends with Heck, the controlling case.\\nHeck addressed whether and when a state prisoner may\\nchallenge the constitutionality of his conviction in a suit for\\ndamages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 478. While\\nHeck was serving a fifteen-year sentence for manslaughter, he\\nbrought a section 1983 action against two prosecutors and a\\nstate police inspector asserting that they engaged in an\\nunlawful investigation that led to his arrest, that they know-\\ningly destroyed exculpatory evidence, and that they caused an\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 5\\n\\nunlawful voice identification procedure to be used at his trial.\\n512 U.S. at 478–79.\\n The Court noted that such a case lies at the intersection of\\nfederal prisoner litigation under section 1983 and the federal\\nhabeas corpus statute. 512 U.S. at 480. In analyzing the claim,\\nthe Court first found that Heck’s section 1983 claim most\\nclosely resembled the common law tort of malicious prosecu-\\ntion, which allows damages for confinement imposed pursuant\\nto legal process, including compensation for arrest and\\nimprisonment, discomfort or injury to health, and loss of time\\nand deprivation of society. 512 U.S. at 484. An element that\\nmust be pleaded and proved in a malicious prosecution case is\\ntermination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the\\naccused. This requirement avoids creating two conflicting\\nresolutions arising out of the same transaction, steering clear\\nof parallel litigation over the issue of guilt. The requirement\\nalso prevents a convicted criminal from collaterally attacking\\nthe conviction through a civil suit:\\n We think the hoary principle that civil tort\\n actions are not appropriate vehicles for challeng-\\n ing the validity of outstanding criminal judg-\\n ments applies to § 1983 damages actions that\\n necessarily require the plaintiff to prove the\\n unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement,\\n just as it has always applied to actions for mali-\\n cious prosecution.\\n We hold that, in order to recover damages for\\n allegedly unconstitutional conviction or impris-\\n onment, or for other harm caused by actions\\n\\f6 No. 17-3543\\n\\n whose unlawfulness would render a conviction\\n or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove\\n that the conviction or sentence has been re-\\n versed on direct appeal, expunged by executive\\n order, declared invalid by a state tribunal autho-\\n rized to make such determination, or called into\\n question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ\\n of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A claim for\\n damages bearing that relationship to a convic-\\n tion or sentence that has not been so invalidated\\n is not cognizable under § 1983. Thus, when a\\n state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the\\n district court must consider whether a judgment\\n in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply\\n the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it\\n would, the complaint must be dismissed unless\\n the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction\\n or sentence has already been invalidated. But if\\n the district court determines that the plaintiff’s\\n action, even if successful, will not demonstrate\\n the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judg-\\n ment against the plaintiff, the action should be\\n allowed to proceed, in the absence of some other\\n bar to the suit.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 486–87 (footnotes omitted; emphasis in\\noriginal).\\n The Court made pellucid the broad consequences of its\\nplainly stated rule:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 7\\n\\n We do not engraft an exhaustion requirement\\n upon § 1983, but rather deny the existence of a\\n cause of action. Even a prisoner who has fully\\n exhausted available state remedies has no cause\\n of action under § 1983 unless and until the\\n conviction or sentence is reversed, expunged,\\n invalidated, or impugned by the grant of a writ\\n of habeas corpus.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 489. Returning to its comparison to common\\nlaw torts, the Court concluded that, just as a claim for mali-\\ncious prosecution does not accrue until the criminal proceed-\\nings have terminated in the plaintiff’s favor, “so also a § 1983\\ncause of action for damages attributable to an unconstitutional\\nconviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or\\nsentence has been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 489–90. See also\\nWallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007) (noting that the Heck\\nrule for deferred accrual is called into play only when there\\nexists a conviction or sentence that has not been invalidated;\\nHeck “delays what would otherwise be the accrual date of a\\ntort action until the setting aside of an extant conviction which\\nsuccess in that tort action would impugn.”).\\n Applying this rule to Savory’s case, we first look at the\\nnature of his section 1983 claims and conclude that, like Heck’s\\nclaims, they strongly resemble the common law tort of mali-\\ncious prosecution. Indeed, Savory’s claims largely echo Heck’s\\ncomplaint, asserting the suppression of exculpatory evidence\\nand the fabrication of false evidence in order to effect a\\nwrongful conviction. The statute of limitations for such claims\\nin Illinois is two years. Heck supplies the rule for accrual of the\\nclaim. Because Savory’s claims “would necessarily imply the\\n\\f8 No. 17-3543\\n\\ninvalidity of his conviction or sentence,” his section 1983 claims\\ncould not accrue until “the conviction or sentence ha[d] been\\nreversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,\\ndeclared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such\\ndetermination, or called into question by a federal court’s\\nissuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 487. In\\nSavory’s case, that occurred on January 12, 2015, when the\\ngovernor of Illinois pardoned him. Until that moment, his\\nconviction was intact and he had no cause of action under\\nsection 1983. Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. His January 11, 2017\\nlawsuit was therefore timely under Heck, and we must reverse\\nthe district court’s judgment and remand for further proceed-\\nings.\\n We said that our analysis began and ended with Heck but\\nfor the sake of clarity, we must address the defendant’s\\narguments that concurring and dissenting opinions of certain\\nSupreme Court justices cobbled together into a seeming\\nmajority or the opinions of this court may somehow override\\nthe prime directive of Heck. The misunderstanding that led to\\nthe erroneous result here originated in a concurrence in Heck\\nfiled by Justice Souter and joined by Justices Blackmun,\\nStevens and O’Connor. In that concurrence, Justice Souter\\nagreed that reference to the common law tort of malicious\\nprosecution was a useful starting point but he asserted that it\\ncould not alone provide the answer to the conundrum found\\nat the intersection between section 1983 and the federal habeas\\nstatute. Ultimately, Justice Souter suggested a slightly different\\nrule that he submitted would avoid any collision between\\nsection 1983 and the habeas statute:\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 9\\n\\n A state prisoner may seek federal-court § 1983\\n damages for unconstitutional conviction or\\n confinement, but only if he has previously\\n established the unlawfulness of his conviction or\\n confinement, as on appeal or on habeas. This has\\n the effect of requiring a state prisoner challeng-\\n ing the lawfulness of his confinement to follow\\n habeas’s rules before seeking § 1983 damages for\\n unlawful confinement in federal court[.]\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 498 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n For persons not in custody for the purposes of the habeas\\nstatute, “people who were merely fined, for example, or who\\nhave completed short terms of imprisonment, probation, or\\nparole, or who discover (through no fault of their own) a\\nconstitutional violation after full expiration of their sentences,”\\nthere would be no requirement to show “the prior invalidation\\nof their convictions or sentences in order to obtain § 1983\\ndamages for unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment”\\nbecause:\\n the result would be to deny any federal forum\\n for claiming a deprivation of federal rights to\\n those who cannot first obtain a favorable state\\n ruling. The reason, of course, is that individuals\\n not “in custody” cannot invoke federal habeas\\n jurisdiction, the only statutory mechanism\\n besides § 1983 by which individuals may sue\\n state officials in federal court for violating fed-\\n eral rights. That would be an untoward result.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 500 (Souter, J., concurring).\\n\\f10 No. 17-3543\\n\\n In contrast, of course, the Heck majority’s rule requires that\\na plaintiff always obtain a favorable resolution of the criminal\\nconviction before bringing a section 1983 claim that would\\nnecessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence.\\nThe majority opinion specifically rejected Justice Souter’s\\nalternate rule:\\n Justice SOUTER also adopts the common-law\\n principle that one cannot use the device of a civil\\n tort action to challenge the validity of an out-\\n standing criminal conviction, but thinks it\\n necessary to abandon that principle in those\\n cases (of which no real-life example comes to\\n mind) involving former state prisoners who,\\n because they are no longer in custody, cannot\\n bring postconviction challenges. We think the\\n principle barring collateral attacks—a long-\\n standing and deeply rooted feature of both the\\n common law and our own jurisprudence—is not\\n rendered inapplicable by the fortuity that a\\n convicted criminal is no longer incarcerated.\\nHeck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10 (citations omitted).\\n The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the Heck framework\\nseveral times. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393; Nelson v. Campbell,\\n541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (citing Heck for the proposition that “a\\n§ 1983 suit for damages that would ‘necessarily imply’ the\\ninvalidity of the fact of an inmate’s conviction, or ‘necessarily\\nimply’ the invalidity of the length of an inmate’s sentence, is\\nnot cognizable under § 1983 unless and until the inmate\\nobtains favorable termination of a state, or federal habeas,\\n\\fNo. 17-3543 11\\n\\nchallenge to his conviction or sentence”); Edwards v. Balisok, 520\\nU.S. 641, 643 (1997) (same). But in Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,\\n21 (1998), Justice Souter again filed a concurrence expressing\\nthe view that he urged in his Heck concurrence, namely “that\\na former prisoner, no longer ‘in custody,’ may bring a § 1983\\naction establishing the unconstitutionality of a conviction or\\nconfinement without being bound to satisfy a favor-\\nable-termination requirement that it would be impossible as a\\nmatter of law for him to satisfy.” Justice Ginsburg, who had\\nbeen in the majority in Heck, this time agreed with Justice\\nSouter (who was also joined by Justices O’Connor and Breyer),\\njoining his concurrence and filing her own: “Individuals\\nwithout recourse to the habeas statute because they are not ‘in\\ncustody’ (people merely fined or whose sentences have been\\nfully served, for example) fit within § 1983's ‘broad reach.’”\\nSpencer, 523 U.S. at 21 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Justice\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":191,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579731,"string":"4,579,731"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Marco Proano"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"17-3466"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3466 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMARCO PROANO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \\nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \\ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \\nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \\nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\n I. Background \\nA. The Shooting \\n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \\nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \\nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \\nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \\nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \\npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \\nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \\nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \\nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \\nparked on the street. \\n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \\nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \\nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \\nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \\nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \\nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \\nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\\nherty dispatched for backup. \\n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \\nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \\nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \\nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \\nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \\n\\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \\none was in its path. \\n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \\ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \\nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \\napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \\nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \\nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \\npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \\nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \\nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \\npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\\nficer fired his weapon. \\n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \\nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \\nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \\nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \\nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \\ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \\nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \\nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \\nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \\n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \\nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \\nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \\nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \\nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \\ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \\nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \\nB. The Prosecution \\n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \\nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \\nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \\nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \\n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \\nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \\nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \\nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \\ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \\ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \\nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \\nsources” for any information the government could have \\ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \\n \\n1 \\n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \\nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \\nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\\nally vague about their contents. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \\n\\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \\nto trial. \\n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \\nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \\nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \\nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \\ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \\nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \\nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \\nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \\npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \\nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \\nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \\nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \\nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \\nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \\n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \\nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \\nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \\nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \\nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \\n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \\nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \\ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \\nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \\nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \\nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \\nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \\nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \\nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \\nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \\nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \\nprotect the life of another. \\n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \\ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \\nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \\nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \\nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \\nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \\nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \\nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \\nthreat.” \\n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \\nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \\nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \\nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \\nof the footage. \\n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \\njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \\n\\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \\ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \\ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \\n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \\nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \\nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \\nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \\nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \\nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \\n II. Discussion \\n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \\nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \\nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \\nchallenge in turn. \\nA. The Garrity Motion \\n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \\nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \\nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \\nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \\npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \\ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \\nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \\n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \\nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \\nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \\n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \\nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \\nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \\n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \\nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \\nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \\na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \\nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \\nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \\nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \\ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \\nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \\nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \\nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \\nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \\nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \\ncourt. That is not clear error. \\n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \\nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \\nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \\nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \\nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \\nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \\nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \\n\\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \\nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \\nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \\n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \\nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \\nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \\nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \\nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \\nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \\nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \\nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \\ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \\nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \\nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \\nprosecutors. \\nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \\n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \\ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \\nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \\nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \\n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \\n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \\nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \\nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \\nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \\n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \\n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \\nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \\nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \\nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \\ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \\nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \\nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \\n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \\n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \\nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \\n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \\n \\n2 \\n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \\nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \\n\\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \\nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \\nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \\nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \\n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \\npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \\nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \\nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \\ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \\nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \\nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \\nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \\ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \\nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \\ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \\nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \\nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \\nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \\nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \\nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \\nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \\ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \\ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \\nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\\nlated evidence. \\n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \\nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \\nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \\nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \\nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \\nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \\n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \\n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \\nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \\ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \\na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \\nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \\nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \\nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \\nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \\ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\\nfore offers no guide here. \\n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \\nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \\nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \\non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \\n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \\nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \\n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \\nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \\nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \\nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \\n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \\n\\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \\nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \\nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \\n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \\n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \\n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \\nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \\nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \\ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \\ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \\ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \\nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \\nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \\n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \\nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \\ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \\nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \\nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \\n \\n3 \\n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \\nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \\npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \\nhere. \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \\n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \\n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \\nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \\nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \\nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \\nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \\nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \\n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \\n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \\nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \\nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \\n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \\nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \\nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \\nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \\ninstructed the jury: \\n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \\n should not consider this training when you decide \\n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \\n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \\n\\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \\n time he acted.4 \\n\\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \\nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \\n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \\nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \\nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \\nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \\nof unfair prejudice). \\n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \\nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \\ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \\nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \\ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \\nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \\nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \\namounted to violating § 242. \\n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \\n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \\nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \\nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \\ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \\nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \\n \\n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\\n\\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \\ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \\ntestimony.” Id. \\n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \\ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \\ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \\n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \\ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \\nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \\nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \\nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \\nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \\nacademy. \\n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \\nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \\ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \\nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \\nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \\ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \\ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \\n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \\nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \\nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \\nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \\n\\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \\nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \\nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \\nC. Willfulness Instruction \\n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \\nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \\nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \\nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \\n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \\nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \\ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \\nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \\ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \\nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \\nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \\nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \\nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \\nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \\nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \\nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \\n \\n5\\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \\ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \\nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \\ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\\nview. \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \\nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \\nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \\n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \\n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \\nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \\n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \\nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \\nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \\nexplained further: \\n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \\n knowing that the force he used was more than what \\n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \\n if he did not know that the force he used was more \\n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\\n der the circumstances. \\nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \\nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \\nWe disagree. \\n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \\nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \\nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \\nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \\nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \\nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \\n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \\nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \\n\\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \\nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \\nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \\nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \\nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \\n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \\nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \\nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \\n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \\nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \\nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \\nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \\nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \\nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \\n\\n\\n \\n6 \\n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \\n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \\n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \\n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \\nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \\ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \\nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \\n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \\nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \\nthe district court fairly stated the law. \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \\n“knowing” out of the instruction. \\n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \\njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \\nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \\nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \\nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \\ncomplementary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \\nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \\ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \\nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \\n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \\nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \\nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \\nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \\n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \\nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \\nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \\n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \\n893 F.3d at 484. \\n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \\nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \\nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \\n\\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \\nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \\nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \\ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \\nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \\nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \\n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \\n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \\n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \\nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \\nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \\nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\\ntation omitted). \\n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \\nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \\npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \\nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \\nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \\nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \\ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \\ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \\nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \\nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \\nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \\nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \\nToyota stopped its retreat. \\n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \\njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \\n\\f22 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \\nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \\nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \\nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \\nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \\nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \\nfired in reaction to the weapon. \\n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \\nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \\ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \\nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \\narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \\nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \\nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \\nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \\n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \\nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \\nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \\nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \\nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \\nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \\neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \\nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \\n\\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \\nonce a suspect is subdued”). \\n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \\nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \\ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \\nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \\nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \\nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \\nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \\nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \\nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \\nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \\nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \\nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \\nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \\nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \\n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \\nto convict Proano on both counts. \\n III. Conclusion \\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\\nment.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4356984/\", \"author_raw\": \"ST. EVE, Circuit Judge\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"KANNE\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579731/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Marco Proano\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3466 \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \n v. \n\nMARCO PROANO, \n Defendant‐Appellant. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \n\f2 No. 17‐3466 \n\n I. Background \nA. The Shooting \n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \nparked on the street. \n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\nherty dispatched for backup. \n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \n\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \n\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \none was in its path. \n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\nficer fired his weapon. \n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \n\f4 No. 17‐3466 \n\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \nB. The Prosecution \n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \nsources” for any information the government could have \ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \n \n1 \n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\nally vague about their contents. \n\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \n\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \nto trial. \n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \n\f6 No. 17‐3466 \n\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \nprotect the life of another. \n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \nthreat.” \n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \nof the footage. \n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \n\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \n\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \n II. Discussion \n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \nchallenge in turn. \nA. The Garrity Motion \n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \n\f8 No. 17‐3466 \n\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \ncourt. That is not clear error. \n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \n\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \n\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \nprosecutors. \nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \n\f10 No. 17‐3466 \n\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \n \n2 \n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \n\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \n\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\nlated evidence. \n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \n\f12 No. 17‐3466 \n\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\nfore offers no guide here. \n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \n\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \n\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \n \n3 \n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \nhere. \n\f14 No. 17‐3466 \n\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \ninstructed the jury: \n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \n should not consider this training when you decide \n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \n\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \n\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \n time he acted.4 \n\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \nof unfair prejudice). \n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \namounted to violating § 242. \n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \n \n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\n\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \n\f16 No. 17‐3466 \n\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \ntestimony.” Id. \n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \nacademy. \n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \n\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \n\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \nC. Willfulness Instruction \n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \n \n5\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\nview. \n\f18 No. 17‐3466 \n\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \nexplained further: \n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \n knowing that the force he used was more than what \n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \n if he did not know that the force he used was more \n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\n der the circumstances. \nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \nWe disagree. \n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \n\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \n\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \n\n\n \n6 \n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \nthe district court fairly stated the law. \n\f20 No. 17‐3466 \n\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \n“knowing” out of the instruction. \n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \ncomplementary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \n893 F.3d at 484. \n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \n\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \n\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\ntation omitted). \n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \nToyota stopped its retreat. \n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \n\f22 No. 17‐3466 \n\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \nfired in reaction to the weapon. \n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\n\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \n\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \nonce a suspect is subdued”). \n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \nto convict Proano on both counts. \n III. Conclusion \n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\nment.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Marco Proano\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\nNo. 17‐3466 \\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, \\n Plaintiff‐Appellee, \\n v. \\n\\nMARCO PROANO, \\n Defendant‐Appellant. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 1:16‐cr‐00590‐1 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 23, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. \\n ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. On‐duty officer Marco Proano fired \\nsixteen shots at a moving sedan filled with teenagers until the \\ncar idled against a light pole. He hit two passengers. The gov‐\\nernment charged Proano with two counts of willful depriva‐\\ntion of constitutional rights, one for each injured passenger, \\nand a jury convicted on both counts. 18 U.S.C. § 242. Proano \\nappeals, claiming both pretrial and trial errors. We affirm. \\n\\f2 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\n I. Background \\nA. The Shooting \\n Around 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2013, two Chicago Po‐\\nlice Department (CPD) officers, Ken Flaherty and Jonathan \\nMorlock, stopped a gray Toyota Avalon on Chicago’s \\nsouthside. The Toyota had just sped out of an alley. The driver \\nfled on foot, leaving one passenger in the front seat and four \\nor five (as far as Flaherty could tell) in the backseat. Morlock \\npursued the driver; Flaherty stayed with the Toyota. Before \\nfleeing, the driver did not, apparently, put the car in park, and \\nit rolled toward Flaherty and his squad car. The Toyota \\nwedged itself between Flaherty’s squad car and another car \\nparked on the street. \\n Jaquon Grant had been in the passenger seat. He too tried \\nto escape as the car rolled forward, but his legs got stuck be‐\\ntween Flaherty’s squad car and the Toyota. Grant tried to \\nbreak free, and Flaherty assured him that when backup ar‐\\nrived Flaherty would assist him. Flaherty shouted commands \\nto the other passengers—“stay still,” “quit moving”—but \\nthey did not obey. One passenger, thirteen‐year‐old Kevon \\nBrown, attempted to flee, but stopped while hanging out of \\nan open backseat window, with his head above the roof. Fla‐\\nherty dispatched for backup. \\n Moments later, Proano and his partner, Guy Habiak, ar‐\\nrived in their squad car. Proano exited the car, with his \\nweapon in one hand, cocked, and aimed at the Toyota. Sec‐\\nonds later, Delquantis Bates, who had been in the back seat of \\nthe Toyota, reached over the center console and pressed his \\nhand on the gas pedal. The car, still wedged, revved but did \\nnot move. Bates then put the car in reverse and pressed the \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 3 \\n\\npedal again. The Toyota jolted free and began to reverse. No \\none was in its path. \\n As the car retreated, three things happened: a metal BB \\ngun fell to the ground from the Toyota, Grant freed himself, \\nand Proano began shooting at the Toyota. Flaherty quickly \\napprehended Grant. Habiak picked up the gun and handed it \\nto Flaherty, saying “Gun. Here’s the gun. Here’s the gun.” \\nAnd Proano continued to shoot at the Toyota as it stopped, \\npivoted, and rolled forward into a light pole. Ten of Proano’s \\nsixteen bullets entered the Toyota. One bullet hit Bates’s \\nshoulder, while others grazed his face. Two bullets hit another \\npassenger, David Hemmans, in his leg and foot. No other of‐\\nficer fired his weapon. \\n After the shooting, Proano completed two Tactical Re‐\\nsponse Reports, forms upon which the CPD relies to docu‐\\nment use‐of‐force incidents. On both forms, Proano admitted \\nto firing his weapon sixteen times. He indicated that he did so \\nbecause an “assailant” presented an “imminent threat of bat‐\\ntery” and so he “use[d] force likely to cause death or great \\nbodily harm.” The assailant’s weapon, according to Proano’s \\nreports, was an “automobile.” Proano did not identify the BB \\ngun as a contributing factor in his decision to shoot in the re‐\\nports. Still on the scene, however, Proano informed CPD de‐\\ntective Stanley Kalicki that he heard one of the other on‐site \\nofficers identify a gun. Proano also told Kalicki that he fired \\nhis weapon because he feared for Brown, who, according to \\nProano, “was being dragged” by the Toyota. \\n Months later, Proano discussed the shooting with the In‐\\ndependent Police Review Authority (IPRA)—a now‐defunct \\nbody, which at the time investigated allegations of police \\n\\f4 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nmisconduct.1 In March 2015, IPRA Investigator Dennis Prieto \\nmet with FBI agents to discuss the shooting. No one involved \\nin that meeting believed that they discussed Proano’s state‐\\nments to IPRA. The FBI agents received material from Prieto, \\nincluding documents reflecting Proano’s statements to IPRA \\ninvestigators. The FBI agents then passed those documents to \\nthe government’s “filter team” for review. \\nB. The Prosecution \\n On September 15, 2016, a grand jury returned a two‐count \\nindictment against Proano for willfully depriving Bates and \\nHemmans of their constitutional rights—namely, their Fourth \\nAmendment right to be free from unreasonable force—in vi‐\\nolation of 18 U.S.C. § 242. \\n Proano filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He ar‐\\ngued that the FBI agents’ meeting with Investigator Prieto led \\nto the disclosure of statements protected by Garrity v. New Jer‐\\nsey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) (a decision we explain below), and that \\nthe disclosure tainted the prosecution against him. The dis‐\\ntrict court held a hearing, in which Prieto and the FBI agents, \\nLarissa Camacho and Eugene Jackson, testified. The district \\ncourt then denied Proano’s motion on two independent \\ngrounds. First, it found no evidence of “seepage or taint” of \\nProano’s Garrity‐protected statements in the prosecution. Sec‐\\nond, the district court found “legitimate independent \\nsources” for any information the government could have \\ngleaned from Proano’s Garrity‐protected statements, \\n \\n1 \\n Because Proano’s statements to IPRA are immune under Garrity v. New \\nJersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and because resolution of this appeal does not \\nrequire delving into the specifics of Proano’s statements, we are intention‐\\nally vague about their contents. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 5 \\n\\nassuming the government had seen them. The case proceeded \\nto trial. \\n Before trial, Proano moved in limine to exclude evidence \\nrelating to his training on CPD policies and procedures. He \\nsubmitted that such evidence was irrelevant and that the gov‐\\nernment’s witnesses—Sergeant Larry Snelling and officer \\nVincent Jamison, neither of whom recalled training Proano—\\nlacked sufficient personal knowledge to testify regarding the \\ntraining Proano received. The government filed a reciprocal \\nmotion in limine, asking the court to exclude evidence of \\nProano’s training on when use of force was appropriate under \\nstate law. The district court resolved the relevance of both \\npieces of evidence with the same stroke—both parties could \\nuse their respective training‐related evidence either to help \\nprove or disprove that Proano acted willfully. Proano, specif‐\\nically, could argue that his actions comported with his state‐\\nlaw training, and so he thought them reasonable; the govern‐\\nment, meanwhile, could argue that Proano’s actions violated \\nhis CPD training, which could be relevant to his state of mind. \\nThe district court reserved ruling on the foundational ques‐\\ntion. It also deferred on resolving questions about the rele‐\\nvance of certain training‐related evidence, such as whether \\nProano was trained not to fire into a crowd or buildings. \\n Trial began on August 21, 2017, and lasted six days. \\nAmong other government witnesses, Flaherty, Bates, and \\nBrown described what occurred the night of the shooting; \\nKalicki explained Proano’s statements after the shooting; and \\nCPD Sergeant Timothy Moore detailed Proano’s post‐shoot‐\\ning reports. Snelling and Jamison also testified. \\n Snelling described the CPD’s use‐of‐force policies, which \\nhe taught at the academy. He could not testify with certainty \\n\\f6 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthat he taught Proano. He was, however, familiar with the \\ntraining that recruits received when Proano was a recruit at \\nthe academy, because trainers used a “common curriculum” \\nand often sat in on each other’s classes to ensure consistent \\nmessaging. Regarding the CPD’s training, Snelling testified \\nthat use of deadly force is appropriate only when an assailant \\nis likely to cause death or serious physical injury. Snelling tes‐\\ntified that recruits learn not to shoot into buildings, windows, \\nor openings without clear visibility, and they learn not to \\nshoot into crowds. Snelling also testified that recruits learn \\nnot to fire at a moving vehicle unless doing so is necessary to \\nprotect the life of another. \\n Jamison testified about firearms training, which he over‐\\nsaw at the academy. He too could not recall whether he per‐\\nsonally trained Proano, but Jamison stated that every firearms \\ninstructor at the academy works from the same preapproved \\nlesson plans. Jamison testified that recruits learn to hold a \\nweapon with two hands absent necessary circumstances, and \\nthey learn never to point a gun merely as a show of force. CPD \\nfirearms instructors also taught recruits to stop and “assess” \\nwhether a threat is ongoing after firing a few shots, though he \\nalso testified that recruits learn to shoot “to eliminate the \\nthreat.” \\n In addition to this testimony, the government introduced \\nvideo footage of the shooting. The footage, taken from \\nProano’s dashcam, showed the shooting unobstructed and in \\nits entirety. The jury saw real‐time and slow‐motion versions \\nof the footage. \\n At the close of evidence, the parties discussed and debated \\njury instructions. Only one instruction‐related debate is rele‐\\nvant here: Proano proposed a (lengthy) instruction on \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 7 \\n\\n“willfulness,” the necessary mens rea for § 242, but the district \\ncourt rejected it as redundant and confusing. The district \\ncourt, instead, instructed the jury on willfulness using an in‐\\nstruction it crafted with the parties’ input. \\n After closing arguments and deliberation, the jury con‐\\nvicted Proano on both counts. The district court later denied \\nProano’s posttrial motion, ruling in part that the court had \\nproperly admitted Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony and \\nthat the government had laid an adequate foundation for their \\nrespective testimony. The district court then sentenced \\nProano to sixty months in prison. This appeal followed. \\n II. Discussion \\n Proano challenges four issues on appeal: (1) the denial of \\nhis Garrity motion; (2) the admission of training and policy \\nevidence; (3) the accuracy of the jury instruction on willful‐\\nness; and (4) the sufficiency of the evidence. We take each \\nchallenge in turn. \\nA. The Garrity Motion \\n Proano first claims that the government violated his rights \\nunder Garrity. The Fifth Amendment assures defendants that \\nthey will not be compelled to testify against themselves. Gar‐\\nrity expounded upon that general right in a particular context, \\nthat of public‐official investigations. Garrity held that when a \\npublic official must choose between cooperating in an internal \\ninvestigation or losing his job, the statements he makes dur‐\\ning the investigation are compelled, and, as such, they cannot \\nlater be used against the official in a criminal trial. 385 U.S. at \\n500. In deciding whether the government violated Proano’s \\nrights under Garrity, we review the district court’s legal \\n\\f8 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nconclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. \\nUnited States v. Cozzi, 613 F.3d 725, 728 (7th Cir. 2010). \\n Proano’s Garrity challenge does not get far. He spoke to \\nIPRA under the threat of job loss, and his statements were \\nthus compelled and Garrity‐protected. But after that his chal‐\\nlenge fails, in three different ways. \\n First, federal investigators and prosecutors cannot misuse \\nGarrity‐protected statements if they are never exposed to the \\nstatements. See id. at 732. The government, in this case, set up \\na filter team to receive and review IPRA’s materials. The filter \\nteam then redacted any protected statements before handing \\nthe materials over to the prosecution team. No evidence sug‐\\ngests that this process was flawed or that Garrity‐protected \\nstatements slipped through. The district court also found that, \\ndespite some ambiguous evidence, the FBI agents and the \\nIPRA investigator did not discuss Proano’s statements during \\nthe March 2015 meeting. As a result, the district court found \\nthat there was no “seepage or taint” of Proano’s Garrity‐pro‐\\ntected statements to the FBI agents or the prosecution team. \\nProano’s only challenge to this conclusion of fact is to rehash \\nevidence thoroughly considered and weighed by the district \\ncourt. That is not clear error. \\n Second, even if the prosecution could have accessed \\nProano’s protected statements, there is no constitutional vio‐\\nlation if the government can establish “a legitimate source \\nwholly independent of the compelled testimony” for the evi‐\\ndence. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460 (1972); see also \\nUnited States v. Velasco, 953 F.2d 1467, 1474 (7th Cir. 1992). \\nHere, the district court specifically found that the dashcam \\nvideo, other witness accounts, and police reports all provided \\nindependent bases from which the prosecution could have \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 9 \\n\\nlearned of the facts Proano described in his Garrity‐protected \\nstatements. Proano makes no attempt to demonstrate that \\nthese findings were clearly erroneous. \\n Third, Proano misunderstands Garrity’s protections. He \\nargues a syllogism: Investigator Prieto knew of the Garrity‐\\nprotected statements, and Prieto’s meeting with the FBI \\nagents prompted the federal investigation; thus, the investi‐\\ngation made derivative use of the Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments. This reasoning is interrupted by the district court’s \\nfindings that Prieto did not disclose Garrity‐protected state‐\\nments and that, even if he did, there were independent \\nsources for the information. What survives of Proano’s argu‐\\nment is only the theory that Prieto tainted the prosecution \\nwith Garrity‐protected statements simply by knowing of the \\nstatements and meeting with FBI agents. That does not fol‐\\nlow, as a matter of logic or law. As we said in Cozzi, we “are \\nnot concerned with how” an investigator who knows of Gar‐\\nrity‐protected statements “may have influenced the federal \\ninvestigation, but rather how [the defendant’s] statements in‐\\nfluenced the investigation.” Cozzi, 613 F.3d at 731 (emphasis \\nin original). The district court did not clearly err in concluding \\nthat Proano’s statements did not reach the investigators and \\nprosecutors. \\nB. Admissibility of the Training and Policy Evidence \\n Proano next claims that the district court made three er‐\\nrors in admitting evidence of his training and the CPD’s poli‐\\ncies. He argues: (1) the evidence was irrelevant; (2) it was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial and confusing; and (3) Snelling and Jamison \\ndid not establish an adequate foundation to testify to the evi‐\\ndence. We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discre‐\\ntion. United States v. Parkhurst, 865 F.3d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 2017). \\n\\f10 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nWe will reverse a ruling only if no reasonable person would \\nagree with the district court’s view. United States v. Ajayi, 808 \\nF.3d 1113, 1121 (7th Cir. 2015).2 \\n 1. Relevance Under Rule 401 \\n Proano’s position on the relevance of the training and pol‐\\nicy evidence has evolved during this appeal. In his papers, he \\nthought such evidence irrelevant to show intent as a matter of \\nlaw. At oral argument, he submitted that the specific evidence \\nused at trial was inadmissible. Both positions are mistaken. \\n To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. \\n402. To be relevant, evidence must tend to make a fact of con‐\\nsequence at trial more or less probable. Fed. R. Evid. 401. This \\nis a “low threshold.” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285 (2004); \\nsee also United States v. Boros, 668 F.3d 901, 907 (7th Cir. 2012). \\nThe Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit only decisive, \\ncontrolling, or the “most” probative evidence. United States v. \\nMcKibbins, 656 F.3d 707, 711 (7th Cir. 2011). If evidence can \\nhelp jurors answer the questions they must ask, the Rules per‐\\nmit its admissibility in the absence of a rule or law to the con‐\\ntrary. Fed. R. Evid. 402; United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310, \\n316 (7th Cir. 2014). \\n The government charged Proano with violating 18 U.S.C. \\n§ 242. Section 242 prohibits the willful deprivation of rights \\nunder color of law, and individuals (Bates and Hemmans in‐\\ncluded) have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from un‐\\nreasonable uses of deadly force. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. \\n1, 10–11 (1985). The two most pressing questions for the jury, \\n \\n2 \\n Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evi‐\\ndence of Proano’s training, for reasons that follow, we need not consider \\nwhether any error was harmless. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 11 \\n\\nthen, were whether Proano used deadly force unreasonably \\nand, if so, whether he did so willfully. The district court ruled \\nthat Proano’s intent—willful or not—was the fact that could \\nbe made more or less probable by evidence of Proano’s train‐\\ning. That decision was not an abuse of discretion. \\n We have before recognized that evidence of departmental \\npolicies can be relevant to show intent in § 242 cases. United \\nStates v. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d 532, 538 (7th Cir. 2017); United \\nStates v. David Brown, 250 F.3d 580, 586 (7th Cir. 2001). Other \\ncircuit courts have as well. United States v. Christopher A. \\nBrown, 654 F. App’x 896, 910 (10th Cir. 2016); United States v. \\nRodella, 804 F.3d 1317, 1338 (10th Cir. 2015); United States v. \\nDise, 763 F.2d 586, 588 (3d Cir. 1985). Those decisions, ex‐\\npressly or impliedly, acknowledge that an officer’s training \\ncan help inform his state of mind in certain circumstances. If, \\nfor example, an officer has been trained that officers should \\ndo certain things when confronted with tense situations, and \\nhe does those things, the fact that he acted in accordance with \\nhis training could make it less likely that he acted willfully. \\nSee Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. And vice versa: If, as here, an \\nofficer has been trained that officers should not do several \\nthings when confronted with tense situations, yet he does \\nthose things anyway, the fact that he broke from his training \\ncould make it more likely that he acted willfully. The district \\ncourt correctly accounted for both sides of the coin, admitting \\nboth Proano’s and the government’s proposed training‐re‐\\nlated evidence. \\n Proano nevertheless argues that the government’s evi‐\\ndence of his training was inadmissible, relying mostly on \\nThompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2006). \\nThompson concerned 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and it held that the \\n\\f12 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nCPD’s General Orders (essentially, formal policy statements) \\nwere not relevant to proving whether force was constitu‐\\ntional. Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. This is because the Fourth \\nAmendment, not departmental policy, sets the constitutional \\nfloor. Id. at 454; see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, \\n815–16 (1996); Scott v. Edinburg, 346 F.3d 752, 760–61 (7th Cir. \\n2003). Since Thompson, however, we have clarified that there \\nis no per se rule against the admission of police policies or \\ntraining. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 537–38; see also Florek v. Vil‐\\nlage of Mundelein, 649 F.3d 594, 602–03 (7th Cir. 2011) (regard‐\\ning expert testimony). We explained in Aldo Brown that such \\na rule would be especially excessive in the § 242 context, \\nwhere an officer’s intent is at issue and the defendant has a \\nconstitutional right to present a defense. 871 F.3d at 538. \\nThompson did not address whether evidence of police policy \\nor training can be relevant to intent; § 1983, unlike § 242, is a \\ncivil statute that lacks a specific‐intent requirement. See Kings‐\\nley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015). Thompson there‐\\nfore offers no guide here. \\n Still, Proano presses, even if some evidence of training \\nmay be relevant, the government’s evidence in this case was \\nnot because it concerned CPD‐specific training. Proano seizes \\non language from Aldo Brown, which said that evidence of \\n“widely used standardized training or practice[s]” could be \\nrelevant to show an officer’s intent in § 242 cases. 871 F.3d at \\n538. Proano characterizes the CPD’s training as “localized” \\nand not “widely used,” and therefore not relevant. That char‐\\nacterization is suspect; the CPD is the second‐largest police \\nforce in the country. David B. Goode, Law Enforcement Policies \\nand the Reasonable Use of Force, 54 WILLAMETTE L. REV. 371, 372 \\n(2018). Regardless, neither Aldo Brown nor common sense lim‐\\nits the pool of admissible training‐related evidence of intent \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 13 \\n\\nto national, model, or interdepartmental standards. Assum‐\\ning those standards exist,3 only evidence of training that the \\nofficer actually received can be relevant to his state of mind. \\nAccord United States v. Trudeau, 812 F.3d 578, 591–92 (7th Cir. \\n2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 566 (2016); United States v. Kokenis, \\n662 F.3d 919, 930 (7th Cir. 2011). \\n Proano’s remaining arguments go to the weight of the ev‐\\nidence, not its relevance. He asserts that the prohibition on \\nshooting into windows and crowds was not relevant because \\nthat training did not concern cars. But as the district court rea‐\\nsonably concluded, four or five people in the back of a car \\ncould constitute a crowd. Proano also asserts that his firearms \\ntraining was not relevant because that training occurred in a \\ncontrolled environment. Yet Jamison testified that the fire‐\\narms training was not training for training’s sake, but rather \\nit was intended to have real‐word application. Proano’s argu‐\\nments were ones for the jury, not us. See United States v. Firi‐\\nshchak, 468 F.3d 1015, 1021 (7th Cir. 2006); Williams v. Jader Fuel \\nCo., 944 F.2d 1388, 1403 (7th Cir. 1991). \\n The probative value of an officer’s training, like most any \\nevidence, depends on case‐specific factors. Those factors are \\ntoo many to list, but no doubt included are the training’s re‐\\ncency and nature, representativeness of reasonable practices, \\nstandardization, and applicability to the circumstances the of‐\\nficer faced. Whatever its ultimate strength, evidence of an of‐\\nficer’s training can be relevant in assessing his state of mind. \\nThe district court carefully assessed the evidence and the \\n \\n3 \\n Proano emphasizes that only national standards can be relevant. The \\nUnited States does not have a national police force, and Proano has not \\npointed us to what more widely used policies could have been relevant \\nhere. \\n\\f14 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nstate‐of‐mind inquiry in this case, and it did not abuse its dis‐\\ncretion in admitting the evidence of Proano’s training. \\n 2. Prejudice and Confusion Under Rule 403 \\n A court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative \\nvalue is substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice \\nor confusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Proano argues the evidence of \\nhis training presented those risks, and that the district court \\nabused its discretion in not recognizing as much. Rule 403 \\nspeaks of what a district court “may” do, so we review a Rule \\n403 decision for abuse of discretion. More than that, a Rule \\n403 decision “is entitled to special deference” because only “in \\nan extreme case are appellate judges competent to second‐\\nguess the judgment of the person on the spot, the trial judge.” \\nUnited States v. Jackson, 898 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2018). \\n No risk of unfair prejudice or confusion substantially out‐\\nweighed the probative value of Proano’s training. Proano con‐\\ntends that the jury could have thought the training evidence \\nmattered to whether his use of force was objectively reasona‐\\nble, a question for which it is generally inadmissible. See Aldo \\nBrown, 871 F.3d at 536–37; Thompson, 472 F.3d at 454. But that \\nrisk was minimal. At the close of evidence, the district court \\ninstructed the jury: \\n You have heard evidence about training the defend‐\\n ant received relating to the use of deadly force. You \\n should not consider this training when you decide \\n whether the defendant’s use of force was reasonable \\n or unreasonable. But you may consider the training \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 15 \\n\\n when you decide what the defendant intended at the \\n time he acted.4 \\n\\nSee Rodella, 804 F.3d at 1338 (approving a similar instruction); \\nsee also United States v. Schmitt, 770 F.3d 524, 535 (7th Cir. 2014) \\n(proper jury instructions can cure potential prejudice); United \\nStates v. Albiola, 624 F.3d 431, 440 (7th Cir. 2010) (same); Fed. \\nR. Evid. 403 advisory committee’s notes (1972) (explaining \\nthat limiting instructions are a factor in weighing the danger \\nof unfair prejudice). \\n Proano also contends that the training evidence was un‐\\nfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to convict for \\nProano’s failure to follow protocol. Proano was free to, and \\ndid, argue to the jury that his training had little applicability \\nto the situation he faced, and the jury received the appropriate \\ninstructions about what was required to convict and how to \\nuse the evidence of his training. Proano identifies no grounds \\nto assume the jury believed that violating CPD policy \\namounted to violating § 242. \\n 3. Foundation Under Rule 602 \\n Proano alternatively contends that, even if the training ev‐\\nidence was admissible, it was not admissible through Snelling \\nand Jamison because their testimony lacked the proper foun‐\\ndation. Specifically, Proano argues, they both lacked “per‐\\nsonal knowledge of the training Proano received in 2006,” \\nwhen he was in the academy. Rule 602 allows a witness to \\ntestify “to a matter only if … the witness has personal \\nknowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602. “Evidence to \\n \\n4 For good measure, district courts should provide this or a similar instruc‐\\n\\ntion verbally before the parties offer a department’s policy or an officer’s \\ntraining into evidence, as well as at the close of evidence. \\n\\f16 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nprove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own \\ntestimony.” Id. \\n Snelling and Jamison could not recall whether they in‐\\nstructed Proano at the academy, but that did not make their \\ntestimony inadmissible under Rule 602. Snelling taught use‐\\nof‐force procedures in (and before) 2006. By virtue of that po‐\\nsition, Snelling was aware of the use‐of‐force training that re‐\\ncruits generally received while Proano was enrolled. He testi‐\\nfied that he was aware of what his colleagues taught at the \\ntime and the academy’s common curriculum because of his \\n“cross‐training,” a practice that ensures consistency among \\ninstructors. Jamison, too, taught while Proano attended the \\nacademy. He testified about the academy’s weapons training \\nbased on his familiarity with the academy’s preapproved les‐\\nson plans and syllabi, from which all firearms instructors \\nteach. Jamison further described the firearms principles to \\nwhich he testified as “basic,” “typical,” and “standard” at the \\nacademy. \\n Snelling and Jamison thus had personal knowledge of the \\nmatters to which they testified, regarding the academy’s stock \\ntraining in 2006. It was for the jury to determine whether \\nProano in fact received that training. Even if it were otherwise \\nand, as Proano submits, Snelling and Jamison purported to \\ntestify regarding the training Proano actually received, the \\ntestimony was still admissible. Personal knowledge can in‐\\nclude reasonable inferences drawn from a witness’s observa‐\\ntions and firsthand experiences. Widmar v. Sun Chem. Corp., \\n772 F.3d 457, 460 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Visser v. Packer Eng’g \\nAssocs., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. \\nGiovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223, 1226 (7th Cir. 1990). Snelling and \\nJamison each offered enough evidence of the homogeneity in \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 17 \\n\\nthe academy’s teachings (facts with which they had firsthand \\nexperience) to establish their respective personal knowledge \\nof what Proano learned there (a reasonable inference). In ei‐\\nther event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ad‐\\nmitting Snelling’s and Jamison’s testimony. \\nC. Willfulness Instruction \\n Proano’s next challenge is to the district court’s jury in‐\\nstruction on willfulness, the mens rea requirement of § 242. \\nWe review de novo whether an instruction fairly states the \\nlaw, and we review the decision to give a particular instruc‐\\ntion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Maldonado, 893 \\nF.3d 480, 486 (7th Cir. 2018).5 \\n Section 242 is a specific‐intent crime. Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d \\nat 538; David Brown 250 F.3d at 584–85. It prohibits the willful \\ndeprivation of constitutional rights. United States v. Lanier, 520 \\nU.S. 259, 264 (1997). The Supreme Court first addressed this \\ncrime (though at a time when it sat in a different part of the \\nU.S. Code) in Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945) (plu‐\\nrality). Screws explained that a defendant need not “have been \\nthinking in constitutional terms” to have willfully deprived \\nanother of a constitutional right. Screws, 325 U.S. at 106. An \\nofficer does, though, have the requisite intent under § 242 \\nwhen he “is aware that what he does is precisely that which \\nthe statute forbids.” Id. at 104; see also id. at 103–105 (an officer \\nviolates § 242 when he acts with “a specific intent to deprive \\n \\n5\\n Proano submits that plain‐error review applies in assessing the district \\ncourt’s willfulness instruction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). That is a puzzling \\nconcession. Our review of the record suggests that he contested the in‐\\nstruction adequately to preserve the issue for appeal, and the government \\ndoes not contend otherwise. We, therefore, will not apply plain‐error re‐\\nview. \\n\\f18 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\na person” of constitutional rights or with “open defiance or in \\nreckless disregard of a constitutional requirement”); see also \\nAldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538. In United States v. Bradley, 196 F.3d \\n762, 770 (7th Cir. 1999), we added that “to act ‘willfully’ in the \\n§ 242 sense, the defendant must intend to commit an act that \\nresults” in a constitutional deprivation. \\n The district court in this case instructed the jury that \\nProano acted willfully if he “intended to deprive” Bates or \\nHemmans of their right to be free from unreasonable force. It \\nexplained further: \\n The defendant acted intentionally if he used force \\n knowing that the force he used was more than what \\n a reasonable officer would have used under the cir‐\\n cumstances. The defendant did not act intentionally \\n if he did not know that the force he used was more \\n than what a reasonable officer would have used un‐\\n der the circumstances. \\nProano argues that these instructions reduced the needed \\nmens rea and transformed § 242 into a general‐intent crime. \\nWe disagree. \\n The district court’s instruction was consistent with Bradley. \\nThe court instructed the jury that it could convict only if \\nProano acted intending to violate constitutional rights. See \\nBradley, 196 F.3d at 769 (approving § 242 instruction that re‐\\nquired a finding of an act “with the intent” to deprive consti‐\\ntutional rights). The instruction then went a step beyond Brad‐\\nley by defining what intent meant under § 242. It explained \\nthat Proano had the requisite intent if and only if Proano \\nknew his force was not reasonable and used it anyway. \\n There is no one definition of willfulness. Ratzlaf v. United \\nStates, 510 U.S. 135, 141 (1994); see also United States v. \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 19 \\n\\nPulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 329 (7th Cir. 2009) (“‘Willfully’ is a no‐\\ntoriously plastic word.”); Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions \\nof the Seventh Circuit 4.11 (2012 ed.) (willfulness is a statute‐\\nspecific term). Yet the district court’s definition tracked how \\nmost authorities understand the term. See, e.g., United States v. \\nDobek, 789 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2015) (willfulness in criminal \\nlaw often requires knowledge that one is violating the law) \\n(citations omitted). The Model Penal Code, as a prime exam‐\\nple, states that willfulness is met “if a person acts knowingly \\nwith respect to the material elements of the offense.” Model \\nPenal Code § 2.02(8); see also United States v. Ladish Malting Co., \\n135 F.3d 484, 487 (7th Cir. 1998). More important than the gen‐\\neral understanding of willfulness, though, the instruction—\\nrequiring a finding that Proano acted “knowing” his actions \\nwere an unreasonable use of force—is consistent with Screws, \\nwhich required that a defendant be “aware” he is doing what \\nthe statute forbids in the § 242 context. Screws, 325 U.S. at 104; \\nsee also Aldo Brown, 871 F.3d at 538.6 The instruction thus did \\nnot, as Proano insists, permit a conviction based only on the \\n\\n\\n \\n6 \\n Other circuit courts have described willfulness in the § 242 context some‐\\nwhat differently. See United States v. Cowden, 882 F.3d 464, 474 (4th Cir. \\n2018) (defining willfulness as “the particular purpose of violating a pro‐\\ntected right … or recklessly disregard[ing] the risk that he would do so”) \\n(citations and alterations omitted); United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, \\n1199–1200 (11th Cir. 2012) (defining willfulness similarly); United States v. \\nMcRae, 795 F.3d 471, 479 (5th Cir. 2015) (defining willfulness as conduct \\ndone “voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do \\nsomething the law forbids”); United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 885 (9th Cir. \\n1993) (“the requisite specific intent is the intent to use more force than is \\nnecessary under the circumstances”). Those definitions are not so dissim‐\\nilar from the district court’s definition to cast doubt on our conclusion that \\nthe district court fairly stated the law. \\n\\f20 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nunreasonable use of force. Proano’s contrary reading takes \\n“knowing” out of the instruction. \\n Proano also insists that the willfulness instruction is mis‐\\nleading when “juxtaposed” with the instruction on how the \\njury could use Proano’s training‐related evidence (i.e., for in‐\\ntent but not objective‐reasonableness purposes). These in‐\\nstructions, he claims, “blur the distinct” objective and subjec‐\\ntive parts of § 242 and are at odds with one another. We again \\nfail to see how. Both instructions were clear, concise, and \\nguided the jury in determining Proano’s subjective intent in \\nshooting at the Toyota. To that end, the instructions were \\ncomplementary: one defined intent; the other told the jury \\nwhat evidence it could use in assessing intent. The district \\ncourt’s instructions provide no grounds to reverse. \\nD. Sufficiency of the Evidence \\n Proano’s final contention is that trial failed to produce suf‐\\nficient evidence to convict him. We can overturn the jury’s \\nverdict only if in viewing the record in the government’s favor \\nit is “devoid of evidence from which a reasonable jury could \\nfind guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Wrobel, \\n841 F.3d 450, 454 (7th Cir. 2016). A defendant bears the burden \\nof convincing the court that “no rational trier of fact could \\nhave found him guilty.” United States v. Warren, 593 F.3d 540, \\n546 (7th Cir. 2010). We have often said that this is a heavy bur‐\\nden—indeed a “nearly insurmountable” one. E.g., Maldonado, \\n893 F.3d at 484. \\n Proano has not met that burden. He first asserts that there \\nwas insufficient evidence to prove that his actions were not \\nobjectively reasonable. Reasonableness depends on the total‐\\nity of the circumstances. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012, \\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 21 \\n\\n2020 (2014). This calls for a balanced inquiry into “the nature \\nand quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth \\nAmendment interests against the countervailing government \\ninterests at stake.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). \\nWe must view the events through the lens of the officer in the \\nmoment, not with 20/20 hindsight. Flournoy v. City of Chicago, \\n829 F.3d 869, 874 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Graham, 490 U.S. at \\n396). The law, of course, allows for “the fact that police offic‐\\ners are often forced to make split‐second judgments.” Graham, \\n490 U.S. at 397. Deadly force is generally reasonable when a \\nreasonable officer in the same circumstances would believe \\nthat the assailant’s conduct put someone in the “immediate \\nvicinity in imminent danger of death or serious bodily in‐\\njury.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 949 (7th Cir. 2018) (ci‐\\ntation omitted). \\n Based on the totality of the circumstances, Proano argues, \\nit was reasonable for him to believe that Brown and the other \\npassengers were in mortal danger and to act accordingly. He \\nemphasizes the chaos of the scene: Brown hanging out of the \\nToyota, Grant stuck between Flaherty’s squad car and the \\nToyota, the occupants’ refusal to show their hands, and the \\ncar reversing. The dashcam video, however, provided ample \\ngrounds for the jury to conclude that there was no danger \\nposed to anyone and, thus, no need for lethal force. The video \\nshowed Brown sitting up out of a window, not being dragged. \\nThe car reversed at a mild pace, and quickly slowed, redi‐\\nrected, and butted against a light pole. No bystander was near \\nit. Yet Proano shot and continued to shoot even after the \\nToyota stopped its retreat. \\n Nor does the BB gun’s presence at the scene show that the \\njury erred in its conclusions. The officers’ first awareness of \\n\\f22 No. 17‐3466 \\n\\nthe gun was when it fell to the ground, and there was no evi‐\\ndence that any passenger threatened an officer with a \\nweapon. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (if a suspect threatens an \\nofficer with a weapon, deadly force may be reasonable). Kal‐\\nicki’s testimony, moreover, suggested that the BB gun fell out \\nat the same time the shooting started. That fact, combined \\nwith Proano’s immediate show of force and Proano’s post‐\\nshooting reports, which did not identify the BB gun, could \\nhave reasonably led the jury to reject the idea that Proano \\nfired in reaction to the weapon. \\n Proano relatedly posits that the government’s reliance on \\nthe dashcam video, particularly its slow‐motion version, is (1) \\ninconsistent with the totality analysis required under the \\nFourth Amendment and (2) distorts the in‐the‐moment expe‐\\nrience Proano felt. The jury heard, and clearly rejected, these \\narguments. The jury saw at trial and had in deliberations the \\nreal‐time dashcam video. It may well have reviewed that \\nvideo and found that no interpretation of the circumstances \\nsupported the notion that someone was in danger. \\n Even if circumstances were sufficient to give rise to a lethal \\nthreat reasonably requiring deadly force, a jury still could \\nhave decided that Proano’s reaction was unreasonable. \\nProano argues that the number of rounds he fired—sixteen—\\nis irrelevant, because officers reasonably shoot until the threat \\nis eliminated. That is correct in principle, see Plumhoff, 134 S. \\nCt. at 2022, but wrong in application. The jury could have con‐\\ncluded (easily) that Proano continued to apply lethal force \\neven after the threat subsided. After the vehicle stopped re‐\\nversing and began inching toward the light pole, Proano con‐\\ntinued to fire several more shots into its side. See, e.g., Becker \\nv. Elfreich, 821 F.3d 920, 928 (7th Cir. 2016) (it is “well‐\\n\\fNo. 17‐3466 23 \\n\\nestablished that police officers cannot continue to use force \\nonce a suspect is subdued”). \\n Proano next asserts that there was insufficient evidence to \\nprove that he willfully used unreasonable force. Again, how‐\\never, the dashcam video provided grounds for the jury to con‐\\nclude otherwise. The brazenness of Proano’s actions alone \\ncould have supported the jury’s conclusion: despite the car \\nnot threatening anyone’s safety, Proano fired sixteen shots at \\nit, including several after the car began idling. See Bradley, 196 \\nF.3d at 769 (sufficient evidence of willfulness when an officer \\nfired at a car “to stop … [its] flight” which, in the circum‐\\nstances, was “clearly unreasonable and excessive”). Add to \\nthat how Proano, viewing the record in the government’s fa‐\\nvor, disregarded training by: using his gun, cocked, as an im‐\\nmediate show of force; discharging it into a group of people; \\nshooting at something into which he did not have visibility; \\nand never reassessing the situation until his magazine was \\nempty. The jury also could have disregarded Proano’s justifi‐\\ncations as inconsistent with the video evidence. Specifically, \\nalthough Proano reported concern for Brown, who he said \\nwas being “dragged” by the Toyota, the jury could have con‐\\ncluded that assertion was flatly not believable in light of the \\nvideo, which showed Brown propped up out of the window \\n(and thus not “dragged”). In all, there was sufficient evidence \\nto convict Proano on both counts. \\n III. Conclusion \\n For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judg‐\\nment.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":192,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443828,"string":"8,443,828"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Marco PROANO"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Proano"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-07"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 17-3466"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Eve, Hamilton, Kanne\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415254/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"KANNE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443828/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Marco PROANO\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Marco PROANO\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-07\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":193,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4579781,"string":"4,579,781"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"David Lee v. Northeast Illinois Regional"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1930"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-1930\\n\\nDAVID LEE, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nNORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COM-\\nMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 10904 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 27, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 8, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Current and former employees filed\\na complaint in federal court against Northeast Regional\\nCommuter Railroad Corporation (“Metra”) and several of its\\nemployees alleging various forms of discrimination. The\\nplaintiffs eventually filed an amended complaint, which was\\n\\f2 No. 18-1930\\n\\nmet with a motion to dismiss, a second amended complaint,\\nand an amended second amended complaint. The defendants\\nresponded to the amended second amended complaint by\\nfiling a motion to dismiss. The motion argued, just as the\\nmotion to dismiss the amended complaint did, that the\\ncomplaint had several substantive deficiencies and failed to\\nprovide defendants with sufficient notice. The district court\\nheld that the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to remedy these\\ndeficiencies warranted denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for leave\\nto file a third amended complaint. The district court then\\ngranted the defendants’ motion to dismiss holding the plain-\\ntiffs’ failure to respond to defendants’ arguments, or otherwise\\ndefend its pleadings, resulted in waiver. The plaintiffs-appel-\\nlants now invite this Court to reverse both holdings. For the\\nreasons set forth herein, we decline the invitation and affirm\\nthe district court.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n On November 28, 2016, two plaintiffs filed suit against\\nMetra and several of its employees in their individual and\\nofficial capacities. This complaint detailed allegations of racial\\ndiscrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for\\nwhich they sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 26,\\n2017, an amended complaint was filed. The plaintiffs in the\\namended complaint numbered eleven; the defendants ten. This\\ncomplaint added several claims of racial discrimination and a\\nclaim that Metra violated the Americans with Disabilities Act\\nof 1990. The complaint described in detail each plaintiff’s\\nexperience at Metra, highlighting a number of instances in\\nwhich African American employees were treated differently\\nthan white employees. The complaint also contained an\\n\\fNo. 18-1930 3\\n\\n“argument” section which described discrimination case law\\nand theories. This section was followed by a section labeled\\n“claims for relief” in which the plaintiffs very briefly outlined\\nthe counts and generically asserted that the defendants caused\\nthe captioned violations.\\n The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint\\nasserting it contained numerous pleading deficiencies. Defen-\\ndants asserted it was “difficult and at times, impossible, to\\ndiscern from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint the alleged acts\\nof wrongdoing attributable to the individual Defendants.” The\\ndefendants also argued the amended complaint contained\\nincorrect numbering and failed to assert wrongdoing against\\nfive of the named defendants. The plaintiffs did not respond to\\nthe motion to dismiss but elected to cure these deficiencies by\\nagain amending their complaint.\\n The plaintiffs, however, submitted the wrong version of\\ntheir second amended complaint. On May 24, 2017, the parties\\nappeared before the district court to address the issue. The\\ndistrict court gave the plaintiffs two options: they could file the\\ncorrect complaint within twenty-four hours or if they desired\\nmore time to address the deficiencies that concerned the\\ndefendants, the district court would allow them one week to\\nfile a third amended complaint. The plaintiffs chose the former\\nand filed an amended second amended complaint. This\\ncomplaint included claims by twelve plaintiffs against twelve\\ndefendants (Metra and eleven of its employees in both their\\nindividual and official capacities). The complaint included\\nclaims of racial discrimination; hostile work environment;\\ndisparate treatment; negligent infliction of emotion harm;\\nintentional infliction of emotional harm; discrimination in\\n\\f4 No. 18-1930\\n\\nviolation of the Fourteenth Amendment for which they sought\\nrelief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; discrimination in violation of\\nTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Illinois Civil Rights\\nAct of 2006, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;\\nretaliation; and breach of contract under Illinois common law.\\n Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended\\ncomplaint arguing it suffered from the same deficiencies as its\\npredecessor. In particular, the defendants asserted the com-\\nplaint did not provide the defendants with notice because it\\nfailed to explain which defendants were being sued for what.\\nDefendants also asserted the complaint contained a number of\\nsubstantive problems: the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim\\nwas preempted by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 159(a);\\nthe race discrimination claims under the Illinois Civil Rights\\nAct of 2006 were fatally deficient because the statute has no\\napplication in employment law; and the claims under Title VII\\nand the ADA were deficient because those statutes only\\nauthorize suits against employers and not individual defen-\\ndants, as the plaintiffs alleged. Defendants also attacked the\\nplaintiffs’ retaliation claims as “conclusory allegations merely\\nreciting the elements of the claim” that cannot survive the\\npleading stage.\\n Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss was lacking in\\nalmost every respect. It failed to outline the federal pleading\\nstandard and did not address any of the defendants’ argu-\\nments. Not only did the plaintiffs fail to make arguments in\\nsupport of the amended second amended complaint, but they\\nalso failed to cite a single case for any purpose. Accordingly,\\nthe defendants’ reply argued that because the plaintiffs failed\\nto provide any legal arguments or cite any relevant authority\\n\\fNo. 18-1930 5\\n\\nto establish their claims, they forfeited their right to continue\\nlitigating the case.\\n On February 23, 2018, the district court denied the\\nplaintiffs’ motion to file a third amended complaint because\\nthe proposed complaint failed to fix any of the deficiencies of\\nthe previous complaints and the plaintiffs failed to explain\\nhow the problems would be fixed. The court also found that\\nthe plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss failed to\\naddress the pleading standard or discuss the elements of\\ntheir claims, failed to cite a single case, and only provided\\narguments based on unsupported conclusions. The district\\ncourt held that the plaintiffs had waived any arguments that\\ntheir pleadings were anything but deficient: “As Plaintiffs\\nfailed to defend their pleading substantively and properly\\nrespond to the deficiencies that Defendants articulated\\n… Plaintiffs have waived their opposition to the instant Motion\\nto Dismiss.”\\n The plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider and, after that\\nmotion was denied, sought relief in this Court. Because the\\ndistrict court gave the plaintiffs ample opportunity to address\\nthe deficiencies outlined by the defendants, and correctly\\nfound that the plaintiffs waived their arguments in opposition\\nto the motion to dismiss, we affirm.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n A. Denial of Leave to Amend the Amended Second\\n Amended Complaint\\n Appellants argue first that the district court should have\\ngranted their motion for leave to file a third amended com-\\n\\f6 No. 18-1930\\n\\nplaint. They assert that because their claims were not futile,\\njustice requires that leave to amend be granted.\\n Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a court may\\ngrant leave to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.”\\nReversing the denial of such a motion is proper only if the\\ndistrict court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the leave\\nwithout justification. Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th\\nCir. 2008). We defer to the district court because it is “particu-\\nlarly well-situated to judge the worthiness of a plaintiff’s\\nmotion to amend his complaint, having been involved in the\\nprogress of the case throughout its development and having\\nviewed first-hand the party’s diligence or lack thereof.”\\nAmendola v. Bayer, 907 F.2d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting\\nBohen v. City of East Chicago, 799 F.2d 1180, 1185 (7th Cir. 1986)).\\n There is a presumption that a plaintiff should have an\\nopportunity to test a claim on the merits, but this presumption\\nmay be overcome if the court finds “undue delay, bad faith or\\ndilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to\\ncure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue\\nprejudice to the opposing party, by virtue of allowance of the\\namendment, futility of the amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis,\\n371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, the district court found the\\nplaintiffs’ repeated failure to cure the deficiencies raised by\\ndefendants warranted denial of the motion.\\n The plaintiffs initially filed a seven-page complaint. The\\ncomplaint was then amended and several defendants, plain-\\ntiffs, and around fifty pages were added. However, there were\\nserious deficiencies with this complaint. The defendants\\nargued the complaint failed to provide them with notice as to\\n\\fNo. 18-1930 7\\n\\nwhat claims were being asserted against which defendants and\\nthe numbering of the paragraphs did not comport with the\\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). The\\nplaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint. However,\\nplaintiffs unwittingly submitted an unfinished version of this\\ncomplaint to the court. In an act of noncompulsory benevo-\\nlence, the district court provided plaintiffs with an opportunity\\nto take an additional week to ensure the deficiencies outlined\\nby the defendants were addressed. The plaintiffs filed the\\namended second amended complaint the next day.\\n This means plaintiffs, over a period of six months, were\\ngiven four opportunities to file an adequate pleading: (1) the\\nfirst complaint, (2) the amended complaint, (3) the second\\namended complaint, and (4) the amended second amended\\ncomplaint. The district court did not abuse its discretion in\\ndeciding that the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to cure the com-\\nplaint’s deficiencies warranted denial of the motion for leave\\nto file a third amended complaint. See Thompson v. Illinois Dep't\\nof Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 759 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding\\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion when plaintiff failed\\nto cure deficiencies that persisted from the first amended\\ncomplaint after given multiple chances to amend after motions\\nto dismiss were filed); Emery v. Am. Gen. Fin. Inc., 134 F.3d\\n1321, 1322–23 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that although the\\ncomplaint could have been cured, the plaintiff had three\\nchances over the course of three years to state a claim and the\\ndistrict judge was not required to provide plaintiff another\\nopportunity to amend).\\n Here, the plaintiffs failed to remedy the deficiencies in their\\npleadings despite having been given multiple opportunities to\\n\\f8 No. 18-1930\\n\\ndo so. This is a valid basis for denying a motion for leave to\\namend the complaint and we will not disturb the district\\ncourt’s ruling.\\n B. Granting of the Motion to Dismiss\\n Having decided the district court did not err in refusing to\\ngrant leave to amend, we now consider whether the complaint\\nwas properly dismissed. We generally review a district court’s\\ndetermination that a complaint fails to state a claim upon\\nwhich relief may be granted de novo. O'Boyle v. Real Time\\nResolutions, Inc., 910 F.3d 338, 342 (7th Cir. 2018). However,\\nbecause appellants failed to make legal arguments in the\\ndistrict court, the issue is subject to waiver. “Longstanding\\nunder our case law is the rule that a person waives an argu-\\nment by failing to make it before the district court.” Alioto v.\\nTown of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Everroad\\nv. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471, 480 (7th Cir. 2010) and\\nTaubenfeld v. AON Corp., 415 F.3d 597, 599 (7th Cir. 2005)).\\nThus, even a complaint that passes muster under the liberal\\nnotice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Proce-\\ndure 8(a)(2) can be subject to dismissal if a plaintiff does not\\nprovide argument in support of the legal adequacy of the\\ncomplaint. See Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 614 (7th Cir.2005).\\nThis rule applies when a party fails to develop arguments\\nrelated to a discrete issue or when a litigant effectively aban-\\ndons the litigation by not responding to alleged deficiencies in\\na motion to dismiss. Alioto, 651 F.3d at 721.\\n In its motion to dismiss, defendants made a number of\\narguments attacking both procedural and substantive deficien-\\ncies of the operative complaint. First, defendants asserted\\n\\fNo. 18-1930 9\\n\\nplaintiffs’ breach of contract claims were preempted by the\\nRailway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 159(a). Defendants pointed out\\nthat the Railway Labor Act separates claims into two buckets,\\nmajor and minor, and minor disputes must be brought under\\nthe adjudicative mechanism of the Railway Labor Act. The\\ndefendants asserted this dispute was “minor” and this proposi-\\ntion was supported by controlling case law. Plaintiffs’ response\\nto this argument merely discussed in lay terms the importance\\nof the dispute and failed to grapple with case law discussing\\nwhat legally constitutes a “major” or “minor” dispute. And\\nthis is the closest plaintiffs’ response came to addressing any\\nof the arguments made by the defendants in their motion to\\ndismiss. The district court’s description of the plaintiffs’\\nresponse was astute:\\n Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ Motion to\\n Dismiss fails to cite a single legal case and only\\n argues through unsupported conclusions of fact.\\n It also does not analyze or distinguish the cases\\n relied on in Defendants’ Motion. In addition to\\n not citing any cases, Plaintiffs did not address\\n the standard for dismissal under Federal Rule of\\n Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or discuss the elements\\n of their claims.\\nPlaintiffs’ arguments on appeal do little to address the issues\\nframed by the Court. They spend significant time discussing\\nthe liberalness of the federal pleading standard, arguing that\\ntoo much was expected of them at the pleading stage. How-\\never, just as they did in the district court, they fail to provide\\nargument that each claim satisfied the pleading standard.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1930\\n\\nPlaintiffs do not discuss the elements, nor any of the substan-\\ntive issues that the defendants raised in the district court.\\n Plaintiffs’ failure to grapple with these issues in the district\\ncourt, and on appeal, clearly results in waiver. See Alioto, 651\\nF.3d at 721. (Finding waiver when plaintiff “doubled down on\\nhis waiver [in the district court] by failing to grapple on appeal\\nwith [aspects] of the district court’s order.”).\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n We AFFIRM the decision of the district court.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4357034/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"HAMILTON\": \", Circuit\", \"BARRETT\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579781/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: David Lee v. Northeast Illinois Regional\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-1930\n\nDAVID LEE, et al.,\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\n\n v.\n\n\nNORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COM-\nMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION, et al.,\n Defendants-Appellees.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 C 10904 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 27, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 8, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Current and former employees filed\na complaint in federal court against Northeast Regional\nCommuter Railroad Corporation (“Metra”) and several of its\nemployees alleging various forms of discrimination. The\nplaintiffs eventually filed an amended complaint, which was\n\f2 No. 18-1930\n\nmet with a motion to dismiss, a second amended complaint,\nand an amended second amended complaint. The defendants\nresponded to the amended second amended complaint by\nfiling a motion to dismiss. The motion argued, just as the\nmotion to dismiss the amended complaint did, that the\ncomplaint had several substantive deficiencies and failed to\nprovide defendants with sufficient notice. The district court\nheld that the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to remedy these\ndeficiencies warranted denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for leave\nto file a third amended complaint. The district court then\ngranted the defendants’ motion to dismiss holding the plain-\ntiffs’ failure to respond to defendants’ arguments, or otherwise\ndefend its pleadings, resulted in waiver. The plaintiffs-appel-\nlants now invite this Court to reverse both holdings. For the\nreasons set forth herein, we decline the invitation and affirm\nthe district court.\n I. BACKGROUND\n On November 28, 2016, two plaintiffs filed suit against\nMetra and several of its employees in their individual and\nofficial capacities. This complaint detailed allegations of racial\ndiscrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for\nwhich they sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 26,\n2017, an amended complaint was filed. The plaintiffs in the\namended complaint numbered eleven; the defendants ten. This\ncomplaint added several claims of racial discrimination and a\nclaim that Metra violated the Americans with Disabilities Act\nof 1990. The complaint described in detail each plaintiff’s\nexperience at Metra, highlighting a number of instances in\nwhich African American employees were treated differently\nthan white employees. The complaint also contained an\n\fNo. 18-1930 3\n\n“argument” section which described discrimination case law\nand theories. This section was followed by a section labeled\n“claims for relief” in which the plaintiffs very briefly outlined\nthe counts and generically asserted that the defendants caused\nthe captioned violations.\n The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint\nasserting it contained numerous pleading deficiencies. Defen-\ndants asserted it was “difficult and at times, impossible, to\ndiscern from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint the alleged acts\nof wrongdoing attributable to the individual Defendants.” The\ndefendants also argued the amended complaint contained\nincorrect numbering and failed to assert wrongdoing against\nfive of the named defendants. The plaintiffs did not respond to\nthe motion to dismiss but elected to cure these deficiencies by\nagain amending their complaint.\n The plaintiffs, however, submitted the wrong version of\ntheir second amended complaint. On May 24, 2017, the parties\nappeared before the district court to address the issue. The\ndistrict court gave the plaintiffs two options: they could file the\ncorrect complaint within twenty-four hours or if they desired\nmore time to address the deficiencies that concerned the\ndefendants, the district court would allow them one week to\nfile a third amended complaint. The plaintiffs chose the former\nand filed an amended second amended complaint. This\ncomplaint included claims by twelve plaintiffs against twelve\ndefendants (Metra and eleven of its employees in both their\nindividual and official capacities). The complaint included\nclaims of racial discrimination; hostile work environment;\ndisparate treatment; negligent infliction of emotion harm;\nintentional infliction of emotional harm; discrimination in\n\f4 No. 18-1930\n\nviolation of the Fourteenth Amendment for which they sought\nrelief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; discrimination in violation of\nTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Illinois Civil Rights\nAct of 2006, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;\nretaliation; and breach of contract under Illinois common law.\n Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended\ncomplaint arguing it suffered from the same deficiencies as its\npredecessor. In particular, the defendants asserted the com-\nplaint did not provide the defendants with notice because it\nfailed to explain which defendants were being sued for what.\nDefendants also asserted the complaint contained a number of\nsubstantive problems: the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim\nwas preempted by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 159(a);\nthe race discrimination claims under the Illinois Civil Rights\nAct of 2006 were fatally deficient because the statute has no\napplication in employment law; and the claims under Title VII\nand the ADA were deficient because those statutes only\nauthorize suits against employers and not individual defen-\ndants, as the plaintiffs alleged. Defendants also attacked the\nplaintiffs’ retaliation claims as “conclusory allegations merely\nreciting the elements of the claim” that cannot survive the\npleading stage.\n Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss was lacking in\nalmost every respect. It failed to outline the federal pleading\nstandard and did not address any of the defendants’ argu-\nments. Not only did the plaintiffs fail to make arguments in\nsupport of the amended second amended complaint, but they\nalso failed to cite a single case for any purpose. Accordingly,\nthe defendants’ reply argued that because the plaintiffs failed\nto provide any legal arguments or cite any relevant authority\n\fNo. 18-1930 5\n\nto establish their claims, they forfeited their right to continue\nlitigating the case.\n On February 23, 2018, the district court denied the\nplaintiffs’ motion to file a third amended complaint because\nthe proposed complaint failed to fix any of the deficiencies of\nthe previous complaints and the plaintiffs failed to explain\nhow the problems would be fixed. The court also found that\nthe plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss failed to\naddress the pleading standard or discuss the elements of\ntheir claims, failed to cite a single case, and only provided\narguments based on unsupported conclusions. The district\ncourt held that the plaintiffs had waived any arguments that\ntheir pleadings were anything but deficient: “As Plaintiffs\nfailed to defend their pleading substantively and properly\nrespond to the deficiencies that Defendants articulated\n… Plaintiffs have waived their opposition to the instant Motion\nto Dismiss.”\n The plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider and, after that\nmotion was denied, sought relief in this Court. Because the\ndistrict court gave the plaintiffs ample opportunity to address\nthe deficiencies outlined by the defendants, and correctly\nfound that the plaintiffs waived their arguments in opposition\nto the motion to dismiss, we affirm.\n II. ANALYSIS\n A. Denial of Leave to Amend the Amended Second\n Amended Complaint\n Appellants argue first that the district court should have\ngranted their motion for leave to file a third amended com-\n\f6 No. 18-1930\n\nplaint. They assert that because their claims were not futile,\njustice requires that leave to amend be granted.\n Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a court may\ngrant leave to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.”\nReversing the denial of such a motion is proper only if the\ndistrict court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the leave\nwithout justification. Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th\nCir. 2008). We defer to the district court because it is “particu-\nlarly well-situated to judge the worthiness of a plaintiff’s\nmotion to amend his complaint, having been involved in the\nprogress of the case throughout its development and having\nviewed first-hand the party’s diligence or lack thereof.”\nAmendola v. Bayer, 907 F.2d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting\nBohen v. City of East Chicago, 799 F.2d 1180, 1185 (7th Cir. 1986)).\n There is a presumption that a plaintiff should have an\nopportunity to test a claim on the merits, but this presumption\nmay be overcome if the court finds “undue delay, bad faith or\ndilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to\ncure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue\nprejudice to the opposing party, by virtue of allowance of the\namendment, futility of the amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis,\n371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, the district court found the\nplaintiffs’ repeated failure to cure the deficiencies raised by\ndefendants warranted denial of the motion.\n The plaintiffs initially filed a seven-page complaint. The\ncomplaint was then amended and several defendants, plain-\ntiffs, and around fifty pages were added. However, there were\nserious deficiencies with this complaint. The defendants\nargued the complaint failed to provide them with notice as to\n\fNo. 18-1930 7\n\nwhat claims were being asserted against which defendants and\nthe numbering of the paragraphs did not comport with the\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). The\nplaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint. However,\nplaintiffs unwittingly submitted an unfinished version of this\ncomplaint to the court. In an act of noncompulsory benevo-\nlence, the district court provided plaintiffs with an opportunity\nto take an additional week to ensure the deficiencies outlined\nby the defendants were addressed. The plaintiffs filed the\namended second amended complaint the next day.\n This means plaintiffs, over a period of six months, were\ngiven four opportunities to file an adequate pleading: (1) the\nfirst complaint, (2) the amended complaint, (3) the second\namended complaint, and (4) the amended second amended\ncomplaint. The district court did not abuse its discretion in\ndeciding that the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to cure the com-\nplaint’s deficiencies warranted denial of the motion for leave\nto file a third amended complaint. See Thompson v. Illinois Dep't\nof Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 759 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion when plaintiff failed\nto cure deficiencies that persisted from the first amended\ncomplaint after given multiple chances to amend after motions\nto dismiss were filed); Emery v. Am. Gen. Fin. Inc., 134 F.3d\n1321, 1322–23 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that although the\ncomplaint could have been cured, the plaintiff had three\nchances over the course of three years to state a claim and the\ndistrict judge was not required to provide plaintiff another\nopportunity to amend).\n Here, the plaintiffs failed to remedy the deficiencies in their\npleadings despite having been given multiple opportunities to\n\f8 No. 18-1930\n\ndo so. This is a valid basis for denying a motion for leave to\namend the complaint and we will not disturb the district\ncourt’s ruling.\n B. Granting of the Motion to Dismiss\n Having decided the district court did not err in refusing to\ngrant leave to amend, we now consider whether the complaint\nwas properly dismissed. We generally review a district court’s\ndetermination that a complaint fails to state a claim upon\nwhich relief may be granted de novo. O'Boyle v. Real Time\nResolutions, Inc., 910 F.3d 338, 342 (7th Cir. 2018). However,\nbecause appellants failed to make legal arguments in the\ndistrict court, the issue is subject to waiver. “Longstanding\nunder our case law is the rule that a person waives an argu-\nment by failing to make it before the district court.” Alioto v.\nTown of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Everroad\nv. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471, 480 (7th Cir. 2010) and\nTaubenfeld v. AON Corp., 415 F.3d 597, 599 (7th Cir. 2005)).\nThus, even a complaint that passes muster under the liberal\nnotice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Proce-\ndure 8(a)(2) can be subject to dismissal if a plaintiff does not\nprovide argument in support of the legal adequacy of the\ncomplaint. See Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 614 (7th Cir.2005).\nThis rule applies when a party fails to develop arguments\nrelated to a discrete issue or when a litigant effectively aban-\ndons the litigation by not responding to alleged deficiencies in\na motion to dismiss. Alioto, 651 F.3d at 721.\n In its motion to dismiss, defendants made a number of\narguments attacking both procedural and substantive deficien-\ncies of the operative complaint. First, defendants asserted\n\fNo. 18-1930 9\n\nplaintiffs’ breach of contract claims were preempted by the\nRailway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 159(a). Defendants pointed out\nthat the Railway Labor Act separates claims into two buckets,\nmajor and minor, and minor disputes must be brought under\nthe adjudicative mechanism of the Railway Labor Act. The\ndefendants asserted this dispute was “minor” and this proposi-\ntion was supported by controlling case law. Plaintiffs’ response\nto this argument merely discussed in lay terms the importance\nof the dispute and failed to grapple with case law discussing\nwhat legally constitutes a “major” or “minor” dispute. And\nthis is the closest plaintiffs’ response came to addressing any\nof the arguments made by the defendants in their motion to\ndismiss. The district court’s description of the plaintiffs’\nresponse was astute:\n Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ Motion to\n Dismiss fails to cite a single legal case and only\n argues through unsupported conclusions of fact.\n It also does not analyze or distinguish the cases\n relied on in Defendants’ Motion. In addition to\n not citing any cases, Plaintiffs did not address\n the standard for dismissal under Federal Rule of\n Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or discuss the elements\n of their claims.\nPlaintiffs’ arguments on appeal do little to address the issues\nframed by the Court. They spend significant time discussing\nthe liberalness of the federal pleading standard, arguing that\ntoo much was expected of them at the pleading stage. How-\never, just as they did in the district court, they fail to provide\nargument that each claim satisfied the pleading standard.\n\f10 No. 18-1930\n\nPlaintiffs do not discuss the elements, nor any of the substan-\ntive issues that the defendants raised in the district court.\n Plaintiffs’ failure to grapple with these issues in the district\ncourt, and on appeal, clearly results in waiver. See Alioto, 651\nF.3d at 721. (Finding waiver when plaintiff “doubled down on\nhis waiver [in the district court] by failing to grapple on appeal\nwith [aspects] of the district court’s order.”).\n III. CONCLUSION\n We AFFIRM the decision of the district court.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: David Lee v. Northeast Illinois Regional\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-1930\\n\\nDAVID LEE, et al.,\\n Plaintiffs-Appellants,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nNORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COM-\\nMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION, et al.,\\n Defendants-Appellees.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 C 10904 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 27, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 8, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Current and former employees filed\\na complaint in federal court against Northeast Regional\\nCommuter Railroad Corporation (“Metra”) and several of its\\nemployees alleging various forms of discrimination. The\\nplaintiffs eventually filed an amended complaint, which was\\n\\f2 No. 18-1930\\n\\nmet with a motion to dismiss, a second amended complaint,\\nand an amended second amended complaint. The defendants\\nresponded to the amended second amended complaint by\\nfiling a motion to dismiss. The motion argued, just as the\\nmotion to dismiss the amended complaint did, that the\\ncomplaint had several substantive deficiencies and failed to\\nprovide defendants with sufficient notice. The district court\\nheld that the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to remedy these\\ndeficiencies warranted denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for leave\\nto file a third amended complaint. The district court then\\ngranted the defendants’ motion to dismiss holding the plain-\\ntiffs’ failure to respond to defendants’ arguments, or otherwise\\ndefend its pleadings, resulted in waiver. The plaintiffs-appel-\\nlants now invite this Court to reverse both holdings. For the\\nreasons set forth herein, we decline the invitation and affirm\\nthe district court.\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n On November 28, 2016, two plaintiffs filed suit against\\nMetra and several of its employees in their individual and\\nofficial capacities. This complaint detailed allegations of racial\\ndiscrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for\\nwhich they sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 26,\\n2017, an amended complaint was filed. The plaintiffs in the\\namended complaint numbered eleven; the defendants ten. This\\ncomplaint added several claims of racial discrimination and a\\nclaim that Metra violated the Americans with Disabilities Act\\nof 1990. The complaint described in detail each plaintiff’s\\nexperience at Metra, highlighting a number of instances in\\nwhich African American employees were treated differently\\nthan white employees. The complaint also contained an\\n\\fNo. 18-1930 3\\n\\n“argument” section which described discrimination case law\\nand theories. This section was followed by a section labeled\\n“claims for relief” in which the plaintiffs very briefly outlined\\nthe counts and generically asserted that the defendants caused\\nthe captioned violations.\\n The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint\\nasserting it contained numerous pleading deficiencies. Defen-\\ndants asserted it was “difficult and at times, impossible, to\\ndiscern from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint the alleged acts\\nof wrongdoing attributable to the individual Defendants.” The\\ndefendants also argued the amended complaint contained\\nincorrect numbering and failed to assert wrongdoing against\\nfive of the named defendants. The plaintiffs did not respond to\\nthe motion to dismiss but elected to cure these deficiencies by\\nagain amending their complaint.\\n The plaintiffs, however, submitted the wrong version of\\ntheir second amended complaint. On May 24, 2017, the parties\\nappeared before the district court to address the issue. The\\ndistrict court gave the plaintiffs two options: they could file the\\ncorrect complaint within twenty-four hours or if they desired\\nmore time to address the deficiencies that concerned the\\ndefendants, the district court would allow them one week to\\nfile a third amended complaint. The plaintiffs chose the former\\nand filed an amended second amended complaint. This\\ncomplaint included claims by twelve plaintiffs against twelve\\ndefendants (Metra and eleven of its employees in both their\\nindividual and official capacities). The complaint included\\nclaims of racial discrimination; hostile work environment;\\ndisparate treatment; negligent infliction of emotion harm;\\nintentional infliction of emotional harm; discrimination in\\n\\f4 No. 18-1930\\n\\nviolation of the Fourteenth Amendment for which they sought\\nrelief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; discrimination in violation of\\nTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Illinois Civil Rights\\nAct of 2006, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;\\nretaliation; and breach of contract under Illinois common law.\\n Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended\\ncomplaint arguing it suffered from the same deficiencies as its\\npredecessor. In particular, the defendants asserted the com-\\nplaint did not provide the defendants with notice because it\\nfailed to explain which defendants were being sued for what.\\nDefendants also asserted the complaint contained a number of\\nsubstantive problems: the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim\\nwas preempted by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 159(a);\\nthe race discrimination claims under the Illinois Civil Rights\\nAct of 2006 were fatally deficient because the statute has no\\napplication in employment law; and the claims under Title VII\\nand the ADA were deficient because those statutes only\\nauthorize suits against employers and not individual defen-\\ndants, as the plaintiffs alleged. Defendants also attacked the\\nplaintiffs’ retaliation claims as “conclusory allegations merely\\nreciting the elements of the claim” that cannot survive the\\npleading stage.\\n Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss was lacking in\\nalmost every respect. It failed to outline the federal pleading\\nstandard and did not address any of the defendants’ argu-\\nments. Not only did the plaintiffs fail to make arguments in\\nsupport of the amended second amended complaint, but they\\nalso failed to cite a single case for any purpose. Accordingly,\\nthe defendants’ reply argued that because the plaintiffs failed\\nto provide any legal arguments or cite any relevant authority\\n\\fNo. 18-1930 5\\n\\nto establish their claims, they forfeited their right to continue\\nlitigating the case.\\n On February 23, 2018, the district court denied the\\nplaintiffs’ motion to file a third amended complaint because\\nthe proposed complaint failed to fix any of the deficiencies of\\nthe previous complaints and the plaintiffs failed to explain\\nhow the problems would be fixed. The court also found that\\nthe plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss failed to\\naddress the pleading standard or discuss the elements of\\ntheir claims, failed to cite a single case, and only provided\\narguments based on unsupported conclusions. The district\\ncourt held that the plaintiffs had waived any arguments that\\ntheir pleadings were anything but deficient: “As Plaintiffs\\nfailed to defend their pleading substantively and properly\\nrespond to the deficiencies that Defendants articulated\\n… Plaintiffs have waived their opposition to the instant Motion\\nto Dismiss.”\\n The plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider and, after that\\nmotion was denied, sought relief in this Court. Because the\\ndistrict court gave the plaintiffs ample opportunity to address\\nthe deficiencies outlined by the defendants, and correctly\\nfound that the plaintiffs waived their arguments in opposition\\nto the motion to dismiss, we affirm.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n A. Denial of Leave to Amend the Amended Second\\n Amended Complaint\\n Appellants argue first that the district court should have\\ngranted their motion for leave to file a third amended com-\\n\\f6 No. 18-1930\\n\\nplaint. They assert that because their claims were not futile,\\njustice requires that leave to amend be granted.\\n Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a court may\\ngrant leave to amend a pleading “when justice so requires.”\\nReversing the denial of such a motion is proper only if the\\ndistrict court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the leave\\nwithout justification. Soltys v. Costello, 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th\\nCir. 2008). We defer to the district court because it is “particu-\\nlarly well-situated to judge the worthiness of a plaintiff’s\\nmotion to amend his complaint, having been involved in the\\nprogress of the case throughout its development and having\\nviewed first-hand the party’s diligence or lack thereof.”\\nAmendola v. Bayer, 907 F.2d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 1990) (quoting\\nBohen v. City of East Chicago, 799 F.2d 1180, 1185 (7th Cir. 1986)).\\n There is a presumption that a plaintiff should have an\\nopportunity to test a claim on the merits, but this presumption\\nmay be overcome if the court finds “undue delay, bad faith or\\ndilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to\\ncure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue\\nprejudice to the opposing party, by virtue of allowance of the\\namendment, futility of the amendment, etc.” Foman v. Davis,\\n371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). Here, the district court found the\\nplaintiffs’ repeated failure to cure the deficiencies raised by\\ndefendants warranted denial of the motion.\\n The plaintiffs initially filed a seven-page complaint. The\\ncomplaint was then amended and several defendants, plain-\\ntiffs, and around fifty pages were added. However, there were\\nserious deficiencies with this complaint. The defendants\\nargued the complaint failed to provide them with notice as to\\n\\fNo. 18-1930 7\\n\\nwhat claims were being asserted against which defendants and\\nthe numbering of the paragraphs did not comport with the\\nrequirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b). The\\nplaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint. However,\\nplaintiffs unwittingly submitted an unfinished version of this\\ncomplaint to the court. In an act of noncompulsory benevo-\\nlence, the district court provided plaintiffs with an opportunity\\nto take an additional week to ensure the deficiencies outlined\\nby the defendants were addressed. The plaintiffs filed the\\namended second amended complaint the next day.\\n This means plaintiffs, over a period of six months, were\\ngiven four opportunities to file an adequate pleading: (1) the\\nfirst complaint, (2) the amended complaint, (3) the second\\namended complaint, and (4) the amended second amended\\ncomplaint. The district court did not abuse its discretion in\\ndeciding that the plaintiffs’ repeated failure to cure the com-\\nplaint’s deficiencies warranted denial of the motion for leave\\nto file a third amended complaint. See Thompson v. Illinois Dep't\\nof Prof'l Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 759 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding\\ndistrict court did not abuse its discretion when plaintiff failed\\nto cure deficiencies that persisted from the first amended\\ncomplaint after given multiple chances to amend after motions\\nto dismiss were filed); Emery v. Am. Gen. Fin. Inc., 134 F.3d\\n1321, 1322–23 (7th Cir. 1998) (holding that although the\\ncomplaint could have been cured, the plaintiff had three\\nchances over the course of three years to state a claim and the\\ndistrict judge was not required to provide plaintiff another\\nopportunity to amend).\\n Here, the plaintiffs failed to remedy the deficiencies in their\\npleadings despite having been given multiple opportunities to\\n\\f8 No. 18-1930\\n\\ndo so. This is a valid basis for denying a motion for leave to\\namend the complaint and we will not disturb the district\\ncourt’s ruling.\\n B. Granting of the Motion to Dismiss\\n Having decided the district court did not err in refusing to\\ngrant leave to amend, we now consider whether the complaint\\nwas properly dismissed. We generally review a district court’s\\ndetermination that a complaint fails to state a claim upon\\nwhich relief may be granted de novo. O'Boyle v. Real Time\\nResolutions, Inc., 910 F.3d 338, 342 (7th Cir. 2018). However,\\nbecause appellants failed to make legal arguments in the\\ndistrict court, the issue is subject to waiver. “Longstanding\\nunder our case law is the rule that a person waives an argu-\\nment by failing to make it before the district court.” Alioto v.\\nTown of Lisbon, 651 F.3d 715, 721 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Everroad\\nv. Scott Truck Sys., Inc., 604 F.3d 471, 480 (7th Cir. 2010) and\\nTaubenfeld v. AON Corp., 415 F.3d 597, 599 (7th Cir. 2005)).\\nThus, even a complaint that passes muster under the liberal\\nnotice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Proce-\\ndure 8(a)(2) can be subject to dismissal if a plaintiff does not\\nprovide argument in support of the legal adequacy of the\\ncomplaint. See Lekas v. Briley, 405 F.3d 602, 614 (7th Cir.2005).\\nThis rule applies when a party fails to develop arguments\\nrelated to a discrete issue or when a litigant effectively aban-\\ndons the litigation by not responding to alleged deficiencies in\\na motion to dismiss. Alioto, 651 F.3d at 721.\\n In its motion to dismiss, defendants made a number of\\narguments attacking both procedural and substantive deficien-\\ncies of the operative complaint. First, defendants asserted\\n\\fNo. 18-1930 9\\n\\nplaintiffs’ breach of contract claims were preempted by the\\nRailway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 159(a). Defendants pointed out\\nthat the Railway Labor Act separates claims into two buckets,\\nmajor and minor, and minor disputes must be brought under\\nthe adjudicative mechanism of the Railway Labor Act. The\\ndefendants asserted this dispute was “minor” and this proposi-\\ntion was supported by controlling case law. Plaintiffs’ response\\nto this argument merely discussed in lay terms the importance\\nof the dispute and failed to grapple with case law discussing\\nwhat legally constitutes a “major” or “minor” dispute. And\\nthis is the closest plaintiffs’ response came to addressing any\\nof the arguments made by the defendants in their motion to\\ndismiss. The district court’s description of the plaintiffs’\\nresponse was astute:\\n Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ Motion to\\n Dismiss fails to cite a single legal case and only\\n argues through unsupported conclusions of fact.\\n It also does not analyze or distinguish the cases\\n relied on in Defendants’ Motion. In addition to\\n not citing any cases, Plaintiffs did not address\\n the standard for dismissal under Federal Rule of\\n Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or discuss the elements\\n of their claims.\\nPlaintiffs’ arguments on appeal do little to address the issues\\nframed by the Court. They spend significant time discussing\\nthe liberalness of the federal pleading standard, arguing that\\ntoo much was expected of them at the pleading stage. How-\\never, just as they did in the district court, they fail to provide\\nargument that each claim satisfied the pleading standard.\\n\\f10 No. 18-1930\\n\\nPlaintiffs do not discuss the elements, nor any of the substan-\\ntive issues that the defendants raised in the district court.\\n Plaintiffs’ failure to grapple with these issues in the district\\ncourt, and on appeal, clearly results in waiver. See Alioto, 651\\nF.3d at 721. (Finding waiver when plaintiff “doubled down on\\nhis waiver [in the district court] by failing to grapple on appeal\\nwith [aspects] of the district court’s order.”).\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n We AFFIRM the decision of the district court.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":194,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443835,"string":"8,443,835"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"David LEE v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION"},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Lee v. Ne. Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-08"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 18-1930"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Barrett, Bauer, Hamilton\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415261/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BARRETT"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"HAMILTON"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443835/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: David LEE v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-08\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: David LEE v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-08\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":195,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4580228,"string":"4,580,228"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Bankdirect Capital Finance v. Texas Capital Bank National"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-09"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1054"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\n\\nNo. 18‐1054 \\nBANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, \\n Plaintiff, Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \\n and \\nTEXAS CAPITAL BANK, N.A., \\n Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \\n\\n v. \\n\\nCAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., \\n Defendant, Counterplaintiff‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 15 C 10340 — John Z. Lee, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 31, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 9, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. BankDirect Capital Finance \\nand Capital Premium Financing both participate in the mar‐\\nket for loans to finance insurance premiums. Insurers want \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nto be paid up front for the full policy period, but many busi‐\\nnesses prefer to pay by the month. A premium‐financing \\nloan makes both things possible. The client makes a down \\npayment toward the annual premium and borrows the rest. \\nIt repays the loan monthly. \\n In 2010 Capital Premium, having exhausted the line of \\ncredit that financed its operations, approached its competitor \\nBankDirect with a request for operating capital. BankDirect \\nwas willing to purchase the loans that Capital Premium \\nmade—and to pay Capital Premium to service those loans \\nwhile they were outstanding—but with a big condition. \\nBankDirect demanded, and got, a right to purchase Capital \\nPremium’s business outright after five years. The contract \\nwent into force in December 2010. (Actually there were four \\ncontracts, but we use the singular for simplicity.) The option \\nto purchase could be exercised near the fifth anniversary. If \\nBankDirect elected not to purchase Capital Premium, then \\neither side could extend the term by notice given before Jan‐\\nuary 4, 2016; otherwise the purchase‐and‐service deal would \\nwrap up on January 31, 2016. Any extension could not ex‐\\nceed the contract’s drop‐dead date, June 1, 2018, after which \\nneither side would have any obligation to the other. \\n BankDirect exercised the purchase option in November \\n2015, but Capital Premium refused to honor it. BankDirect \\nfiled this suit under the diversity jurisdiction, seeking to en‐\\nforce the option to purchase. It treated Capital Premium’s \\nrejection of the purchase as a default, which entitled it to \\ntake measures for self‐protection. This led Capital Premium \\nto file a counterclaim. It demanded an injunction that would \\nrequire BankDirect to continue purchasing the loans and \\npaying it to service them. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 3 \\n\\n BankDirect continued dealing with Capital Premium \\nthrough May 1, 2017, when it seized several of Capital Pre‐\\nmium’s accounts and stated that it would no longer buy any \\nloans from Capital Premium. This led Capital Premium to \\nrenew its request for an injunction. For its part, BankDirect \\nwithdrew its request for specific performance of the pur‐\\nchase. (It believes that the parties’ relations have so soured \\nthat an acquisition would fail commercially.) BankDirect \\nagreed to maintain the status quo until the court ruled. \\n Judge Gottschall concluded that Capital Premium is enti‐\\ntled to a preliminary injunction requiring BankDirect to con‐\\ntinue business with Capital Premium in the same way it had \\nbeen doing earlier. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 (N.D. Ill. \\nNov. 29, 2017). The district court contemplated that the loan‐\\npurchase‐and‐service arrangement would continue while it \\nresolved the dispute on the merits. \\n Unfortunately, several things went wrong. \\n First, the district court did not address the significance of \\nthe June 2018 terminal date. The judge may have thought \\nthat the suit would be over by then; at all events, she did not \\nprovide for what was to happen on June 1, 2018, if the litiga‐\\ntion was ongoing. \\n Second, the language that the judge evidently intended \\nto serve as the injunction left unresolved not only the effect \\nof the drop‐dead date but also other disputes. The last para‐\\ngraph of the court’s opinion reads: \\n For the reasons discussed above, Capital Premium’s motion for a \\n preliminary injunction is granted. Accordingly, BankDirect is \\n preliminarily enjoined from terminating Capital Premium as the \\n servicer of loans that Capital Premium originates; interfering \\n with Capital Premium’s control of its deposit accounts; interfer‐\\n\\f4 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\n ing with Capital Premium’s access to its Participation Interest; \\n retaining the $1,000,000 it seized from Capital Premium’s ac‐\\n count on May 1, 2017; and seizing any additional funds from \\n Capital Premium’s accounts, including any portion of the \\n $5,000,000 that BankDirect has demanded. \\n\\n2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 at *40. Much of the parties’ dis‐\\npute on appeal concerns the absence of attention to the con‐\\ntract’s terminal date and the omission of any order with re‐\\nspect to BankDirect’s purchase of loans that Capital Premi‐\\num originates. Nor did the judge pin down ambiguous \\nterms such as “interfering”. Maybe the judge meant to grant \\nwhatever relief Capital Premium had requested, but the \\nopinion does not say this—and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) \\nforbids incorporating another document (such as a motion) \\nby reference. \\n Third, the district court failed to enter an injunction as a \\nseparate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C). Lan‐\\nguage in an opinion does not comply with Rule 65(d). See \\nGunn v. University Committee to End the War, 399 U.S. 383 \\n(1970). Neither side reminded the district court of the need \\nto enter an injunction. \\n Fourth, the district court did not require Capital Premi‐\\num to post a bond, despite Rule 65(c), which says (emphasis \\nadded): “The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a \\ntemporary restraining order only if the movant gives security \\nin an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs \\nand damages sustained by any party found to have been \\nwrongfully enjoined or restrained.” \\n Although BankDirect missed the significance of Rule \\n65(d), it was acutely aware of Rule 65(c). Contending that the \\ninjunction would cost it about $500,000 a month, it asked the \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 5 \\n\\ndistrict court to require Capital Premium to post a substan‐\\ntial bond—for, in the absence of a bond, a litigant injured by \\nan injunction later determined to have been improper does \\nnot have a remedy. See, e.g., Coyne‐Delaney Co. v. Capital De‐\\nvelopment Board, 717 F.2d 385, 393–94 (7th Cir. 1983). That is \\nwhy Rule 65(c) makes the effectiveness of a preliminary in‐\\njunction contingent on the bond having been posted. United \\nStates v. Associated Air Transport, Inc., 256 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. \\n1958); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11A Federal \\nPractice & Procedure §2954 at 319 (3d ed. 2013). A judge might \\nconsider an indemnity of $0 (that is, no bond) “proper” \\nwhen the suit is about constitutional principles rather than \\ncommercial transactions, but no one thinks that condition \\nsatisfied here. \\n The case was transferred to Judge Lee, who found that \\nBankDirect is entitled to a bond of at least $7.5 million but \\ninsisted that it continue to obey the language of Judge \\nGottschall’s opinion in the interim. In response to Capital \\nPremium’s assertions that it lacked the funds to secure a \\nbond—the very situation that should have deferred injunc‐\\ntive relief, lest BankDirect be saddled with losses it could not \\nrecoup—Judge Lee repeatedly extended the time for the \\nbond’s posting. Finally, in November 2018, while this appeal \\nwas under advisement, Capital Premium posted a bond for \\n$7.5 million. BankDirect was at last secured. Still, if it is right \\nthat the preliminary injunction is costing it $500,000 a \\nmonth, the protection has only a short time left to run. \\n In addition to asking Judge Lee for the protection of a \\nbond, BankDirect asked him to specify when the injunction \\nwould end. Judge Lee declined to make an independent de‐\\ncision on that subject. Instead he tried to divine Judge \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nGottschall’s intent about the matter—no easy task, as she \\nhad not said one word about it. Concluding that Judge \\nGottschall had meant the injunction to last at least as long as \\nthe suit remained pending, Judge Lee denied BankDirect’s \\nrequest for a terminal date. Similarly, Judge Lee assumed \\nthat Judge Gottschall must have wanted to compel BankDi‐\\nrect to go on purchasing loans from Capital Premium, even \\nthough the last paragraph of her opinion does not say that. \\n Our initial question is whether we have appellate juris‐\\ndiction. In addition to holding that statements in an opinion \\nare not an injunction, Gunn concludes that the absence of an \\ninjunction satisfying Rule 65(d) prevents a direct appeal \\nfrom a three‐judge district court to the Supreme Court under \\n28 U.S.C. §1253 (1970 ed.). If that’s how §1253 works, maybe \\nthe same is true about §1292(a)(1), which BankDirect in‐\\nvokes. We requested and have received supplemental mem‐\\noranda about that subject. \\n Burgess v. Ryan, 996 F.2d 180, 183–84 (7th Cir. 1993), ob‐\\nserves that §1253 and §1292(a)(1) differ in this respect. Gunn \\nemphasized that appeals from district courts (even three‐\\njudge district courts) direct to the Supreme Court are sup‐\\nposed to be rare. The Justices evidently contemplated that \\ndismissing the appeal under §1253 would allow an appeal to \\nthe court of appeals. Gerstein v. Coe, 417 U.S. 279 (1974); \\nGunn, 399 U.S. at 391 (White, J., concurring). How else could \\nthe violation of Rule 65(d) be corrected? See also Original \\nGreat American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cook‐\\nies, Ltd., 970 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1992). \\n When a district court does not put an order into writing, \\nit is so transparently ineffectual that neither side is adversely \\naffected. That means no appeal, for an empty declaration has \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 7 \\n\\nno loser, and only a district‐court loser can appeal. See Bates \\nv. Johnson, 901 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1990). But Judge Gottschall \\nentered a written order that she expected BankDirect to \\nobey. Judge Lee shared that view even after being reminded \\nthat Rule 65(c) makes the injunction’s effectiveness depend \\non a bond. It would pile injury on injury to tell BankDirect \\nthat it not only was unprotected by a bond for a year but also \\ncould not even obtain appellate review of an order that the \\ndistrict court sees as a long‐term injunction. See Schmidt v. \\nLessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (reversing an injunction that vio‐\\nlated the requirement in Rule 65(d)(1)(B) that every order \\n“state its terms specifically”; this implies that at least some \\nviolations of Rule 65(d) do not defeat appellate jurisdiction). \\n We do not need to say anything about the merits, or more \\nabout Rule 65(c) and (d), because this injunction (as we now \\ncall the last paragraph of Judge Gottschall’s opinion) should \\nhave contained a terminal date: June 1, 2018. As that date has \\npassed, all we need do is vacate the injunction and remand \\nso that the district court can decide whether either side has \\nbroken a promise, and if so what damages are available. \\n Some language in the district court’s opinion suggests \\nthat Judge Gottschall saw the initial end date of January 31, \\n2016, as material only if BankDirect declined to exercise its \\npurchase option. If Capital Premium became a subsidiary of \\nBankDirect, all of the contract’s deadlines would be mean‐\\ningless. Judge Gottschall observed that BankDirect had exer‐\\ncised its option, which meant, she concluded, that the ab‐\\nsence of a renewal notice before January 4, 2016, did not \\ncause the purchase‐and‐service obligations to end on Janu‐\\nary 31, 2016. If this is right, perhaps the same is true about \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nJune 1, 2018: that date loses significance if BankDirect buys \\nthe business. \\n The problem with this line of argument is that BankDi‐\\nrect has not bought Capital Premium’s business. It tried to, \\nbut Capital Premium refused to execute that transaction. \\n(Whether Capital Premium was privileged to make that de‐\\ncision, or instead acted wrongfully, is for the district court to \\nconsider on remand.) Because the sale did not close, the par‐\\nties remain in an arms’‐length business transaction to which \\nthe dates are as important as if BankDirect had never tried to \\nexercise its option. And the most important date is June 1, \\n2018. If the terminal date is extended past January 31, 2016, \\nthe “extended commitment date and new maturity date \\nshall in any such case not be later than June 1, 2018”. So if \\nBankDirect’s unsuccessful effort to buy Capital Premium’s \\nbusiness is treated as extending the deal’s initial date past \\nJanuary 31, 2016, this clause sets a limit. \\n No sensible commercial party wants to be trapped in a \\nlong‐term relation. That’s why contracts such as this include \\ndrop‐dead dates. Yet Capital Premium maintains that \\nBankDirect could not get out by exercising the option to buy \\nthe business—and, precisely because Capital Premium re‐\\nfused to honor its commitment to sell, BankDirect can’t get \\nout any other way, ever. The carefully drafted language of \\nthis contract dispels any suggestion that BankDirect was in‐\\ndifferent to the risks of being locked into a money‐losing re‐\\nlation, of indefinite duration, with a firm that it does not \\ntrust. This contract means what it says. \\n The injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded with \\ninstructions to award BankDirect damages for time the in‐\\njunction has extended past June 1, 2018, and to determine \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 9 \\n\\nwhether either side owes damages to the other for breach of \\ncontract. The mandate will issue today, so that the injunction \\nterminates immediately.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4357481/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580228/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Bankdirect Capital Finance v. Texas Capital Bank National\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-09\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \n\nNo. 18‐1054 \nBANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, \n Plaintiff, Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \n and \nTEXAS CAPITAL BANK, N.A., \n Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \n\n v. \n\nCAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., \n Defendant, Counterplaintiff‐Appellee. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \n No. 15 C 10340 — John Z. Lee, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 31, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 9, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit \nJudges. \n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. BankDirect Capital Finance \nand Capital Premium Financing both participate in the mar‐\nket for loans to finance insurance premiums. Insurers want \n\f2 No. 18‐1054 \n\nto be paid up front for the full policy period, but many busi‐\nnesses prefer to pay by the month. A premium‐financing \nloan makes both things possible. The client makes a down \npayment toward the annual premium and borrows the rest. \nIt repays the loan monthly. \n In 2010 Capital Premium, having exhausted the line of \ncredit that financed its operations, approached its competitor \nBankDirect with a request for operating capital. BankDirect \nwas willing to purchase the loans that Capital Premium \nmade—and to pay Capital Premium to service those loans \nwhile they were outstanding—but with a big condition. \nBankDirect demanded, and got, a right to purchase Capital \nPremium’s business outright after five years. The contract \nwent into force in December 2010. (Actually there were four \ncontracts, but we use the singular for simplicity.) The option \nto purchase could be exercised near the fifth anniversary. If \nBankDirect elected not to purchase Capital Premium, then \neither side could extend the term by notice given before Jan‐\nuary 4, 2016; otherwise the purchase‐and‐service deal would \nwrap up on January 31, 2016. Any extension could not ex‐\nceed the contract’s drop‐dead date, June 1, 2018, after which \nneither side would have any obligation to the other. \n BankDirect exercised the purchase option in November \n2015, but Capital Premium refused to honor it. BankDirect \nfiled this suit under the diversity jurisdiction, seeking to en‐\nforce the option to purchase. It treated Capital Premium’s \nrejection of the purchase as a default, which entitled it to \ntake measures for self‐protection. This led Capital Premium \nto file a counterclaim. It demanded an injunction that would \nrequire BankDirect to continue purchasing the loans and \npaying it to service them. \n\fNo. 18‐1054 3 \n\n BankDirect continued dealing with Capital Premium \nthrough May 1, 2017, when it seized several of Capital Pre‐\nmium’s accounts and stated that it would no longer buy any \nloans from Capital Premium. This led Capital Premium to \nrenew its request for an injunction. For its part, BankDirect \nwithdrew its request for specific performance of the pur‐\nchase. (It believes that the parties’ relations have so soured \nthat an acquisition would fail commercially.) BankDirect \nagreed to maintain the status quo until the court ruled. \n Judge Gottschall concluded that Capital Premium is enti‐\ntled to a preliminary injunction requiring BankDirect to con‐\ntinue business with Capital Premium in the same way it had \nbeen doing earlier. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 (N.D. Ill. \nNov. 29, 2017). The district court contemplated that the loan‐\npurchase‐and‐service arrangement would continue while it \nresolved the dispute on the merits. \n Unfortunately, several things went wrong. \n First, the district court did not address the significance of \nthe June 2018 terminal date. The judge may have thought \nthat the suit would be over by then; at all events, she did not \nprovide for what was to happen on June 1, 2018, if the litiga‐\ntion was ongoing. \n Second, the language that the judge evidently intended \nto serve as the injunction left unresolved not only the effect \nof the drop‐dead date but also other disputes. The last para‐\ngraph of the court’s opinion reads: \n For the reasons discussed above, Capital Premium’s motion for a \n preliminary injunction is granted. Accordingly, BankDirect is \n preliminarily enjoined from terminating Capital Premium as the \n servicer of loans that Capital Premium originates; interfering \n with Capital Premium’s control of its deposit accounts; interfer‐\n\f4 No. 18‐1054 \n\n ing with Capital Premium’s access to its Participation Interest; \n retaining the $1,000,000 it seized from Capital Premium’s ac‐\n count on May 1, 2017; and seizing any additional funds from \n Capital Premium’s accounts, including any portion of the \n $5,000,000 that BankDirect has demanded. \n\n2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 at *40. Much of the parties’ dis‐\npute on appeal concerns the absence of attention to the con‐\ntract’s terminal date and the omission of any order with re‐\nspect to BankDirect’s purchase of loans that Capital Premi‐\num originates. Nor did the judge pin down ambiguous \nterms such as “interfering”. Maybe the judge meant to grant \nwhatever relief Capital Premium had requested, but the \nopinion does not say this—and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) \nforbids incorporating another document (such as a motion) \nby reference. \n Third, the district court failed to enter an injunction as a \nseparate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C). Lan‐\nguage in an opinion does not comply with Rule 65(d). See \nGunn v. University Committee to End the War, 399 U.S. 383 \n(1970). Neither side reminded the district court of the need \nto enter an injunction. \n Fourth, the district court did not require Capital Premi‐\num to post a bond, despite Rule 65(c), which says (emphasis \nadded): “The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a \ntemporary restraining order only if the movant gives security \nin an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs \nand damages sustained by any party found to have been \nwrongfully enjoined or restrained.” \n Although BankDirect missed the significance of Rule \n65(d), it was acutely aware of Rule 65(c). Contending that the \ninjunction would cost it about $500,000 a month, it asked the \n\fNo. 18‐1054 5 \n\ndistrict court to require Capital Premium to post a substan‐\ntial bond—for, in the absence of a bond, a litigant injured by \nan injunction later determined to have been improper does \nnot have a remedy. See, e.g., Coyne‐Delaney Co. v. Capital De‐\nvelopment Board, 717 F.2d 385, 393–94 (7th Cir. 1983). That is \nwhy Rule 65(c) makes the effectiveness of a preliminary in‐\njunction contingent on the bond having been posted. United \nStates v. Associated Air Transport, Inc., 256 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. \n1958); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11A Federal \nPractice & Procedure §2954 at 319 (3d ed. 2013). A judge might \nconsider an indemnity of $0 (that is, no bond) “proper” \nwhen the suit is about constitutional principles rather than \ncommercial transactions, but no one thinks that condition \nsatisfied here. \n The case was transferred to Judge Lee, who found that \nBankDirect is entitled to a bond of at least $7.5 million but \ninsisted that it continue to obey the language of Judge \nGottschall’s opinion in the interim. In response to Capital \nPremium’s assertions that it lacked the funds to secure a \nbond—the very situation that should have deferred injunc‐\ntive relief, lest BankDirect be saddled with losses it could not \nrecoup—Judge Lee repeatedly extended the time for the \nbond’s posting. Finally, in November 2018, while this appeal \nwas under advisement, Capital Premium posted a bond for \n$7.5 million. BankDirect was at last secured. Still, if it is right \nthat the preliminary injunction is costing it $500,000 a \nmonth, the protection has only a short time left to run. \n In addition to asking Judge Lee for the protection of a \nbond, BankDirect asked him to specify when the injunction \nwould end. Judge Lee declined to make an independent de‐\ncision on that subject. Instead he tried to divine Judge \n\f6 No. 18‐1054 \n\nGottschall’s intent about the matter—no easy task, as she \nhad not said one word about it. Concluding that Judge \nGottschall had meant the injunction to last at least as long as \nthe suit remained pending, Judge Lee denied BankDirect’s \nrequest for a terminal date. Similarly, Judge Lee assumed \nthat Judge Gottschall must have wanted to compel BankDi‐\nrect to go on purchasing loans from Capital Premium, even \nthough the last paragraph of her opinion does not say that. \n Our initial question is whether we have appellate juris‐\ndiction. In addition to holding that statements in an opinion \nare not an injunction, Gunn concludes that the absence of an \ninjunction satisfying Rule 65(d) prevents a direct appeal \nfrom a three‐judge district court to the Supreme Court under \n28 U.S.C. §1253 (1970 ed.). If that’s how §1253 works, maybe \nthe same is true about §1292(a)(1), which BankDirect in‐\nvokes. We requested and have received supplemental mem‐\noranda about that subject. \n Burgess v. Ryan, 996 F.2d 180, 183–84 (7th Cir. 1993), ob‐\nserves that §1253 and §1292(a)(1) differ in this respect. Gunn \nemphasized that appeals from district courts (even three‐\njudge district courts) direct to the Supreme Court are sup‐\nposed to be rare. The Justices evidently contemplated that \ndismissing the appeal under §1253 would allow an appeal to \nthe court of appeals. Gerstein v. Coe, 417 U.S. 279 (1974); \nGunn, 399 U.S. at 391 (White, J., concurring). How else could \nthe violation of Rule 65(d) be corrected? See also Original \nGreat American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cook‐\nies, Ltd., 970 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1992). \n When a district court does not put an order into writing, \nit is so transparently ineffectual that neither side is adversely \naffected. That means no appeal, for an empty declaration has \n\fNo. 18‐1054 7 \n\nno loser, and only a district‐court loser can appeal. See Bates \nv. Johnson, 901 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1990). But Judge Gottschall \nentered a written order that she expected BankDirect to \nobey. Judge Lee shared that view even after being reminded \nthat Rule 65(c) makes the injunction’s effectiveness depend \non a bond. It would pile injury on injury to tell BankDirect \nthat it not only was unprotected by a bond for a year but also \ncould not even obtain appellate review of an order that the \ndistrict court sees as a long‐term injunction. See Schmidt v. \nLessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (reversing an injunction that vio‐\nlated the requirement in Rule 65(d)(1)(B) that every order \n“state its terms specifically”; this implies that at least some \nviolations of Rule 65(d) do not defeat appellate jurisdiction). \n We do not need to say anything about the merits, or more \nabout Rule 65(c) and (d), because this injunction (as we now \ncall the last paragraph of Judge Gottschall’s opinion) should \nhave contained a terminal date: June 1, 2018. As that date has \npassed, all we need do is vacate the injunction and remand \nso that the district court can decide whether either side has \nbroken a promise, and if so what damages are available. \n Some language in the district court’s opinion suggests \nthat Judge Gottschall saw the initial end date of January 31, \n2016, as material only if BankDirect declined to exercise its \npurchase option. If Capital Premium became a subsidiary of \nBankDirect, all of the contract’s deadlines would be mean‐\ningless. Judge Gottschall observed that BankDirect had exer‐\ncised its option, which meant, she concluded, that the ab‐\nsence of a renewal notice before January 4, 2016, did not \ncause the purchase‐and‐service obligations to end on Janu‐\nary 31, 2016. If this is right, perhaps the same is true about \n\f8 No. 18‐1054 \n\nJune 1, 2018: that date loses significance if BankDirect buys \nthe business. \n The problem with this line of argument is that BankDi‐\nrect has not bought Capital Premium’s business. It tried to, \nbut Capital Premium refused to execute that transaction. \n(Whether Capital Premium was privileged to make that de‐\ncision, or instead acted wrongfully, is for the district court to \nconsider on remand.) Because the sale did not close, the par‐\nties remain in an arms’‐length business transaction to which \nthe dates are as important as if BankDirect had never tried to \nexercise its option. And the most important date is June 1, \n2018. If the terminal date is extended past January 31, 2016, \nthe “extended commitment date and new maturity date \nshall in any such case not be later than June 1, 2018”. So if \nBankDirect’s unsuccessful effort to buy Capital Premium’s \nbusiness is treated as extending the deal’s initial date past \nJanuary 31, 2016, this clause sets a limit. \n No sensible commercial party wants to be trapped in a \nlong‐term relation. That’s why contracts such as this include \ndrop‐dead dates. Yet Capital Premium maintains that \nBankDirect could not get out by exercising the option to buy \nthe business—and, precisely because Capital Premium re‐\nfused to honor its commitment to sell, BankDirect can’t get \nout any other way, ever. The carefully drafted language of \nthis contract dispels any suggestion that BankDirect was in‐\ndifferent to the risks of being locked into a money‐losing re‐\nlation, of indefinite duration, with a firm that it does not \ntrust. This contract means what it says. \n The injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded with \ninstructions to award BankDirect damages for time the in‐\njunction has extended past June 1, 2018, and to determine \n\fNo. 18‐1054 9 \n\nwhether either side owes damages to the other for breach of \ncontract. The mandate will issue today, so that the injunction \nterminates immediately.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Bankdirect Capital Finance v. Texas Capital Bank National\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-09\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\n\\nNo. 18‐1054 \\nBANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, \\n Plaintiff, Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \\n and \\nTEXAS CAPITAL BANK, N.A., \\n Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \\n\\n v. \\n\\nCAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., \\n Defendant, Counterplaintiff‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 15 C 10340 — John Z. Lee, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 31, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 9, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. BankDirect Capital Finance \\nand Capital Premium Financing both participate in the mar‐\\nket for loans to finance insurance premiums. Insurers want \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nto be paid up front for the full policy period, but many busi‐\\nnesses prefer to pay by the month. A premium‐financing \\nloan makes both things possible. The client makes a down \\npayment toward the annual premium and borrows the rest. \\nIt repays the loan monthly. \\n In 2010 Capital Premium, having exhausted the line of \\ncredit that financed its operations, approached its competitor \\nBankDirect with a request for operating capital. BankDirect \\nwas willing to purchase the loans that Capital Premium \\nmade—and to pay Capital Premium to service those loans \\nwhile they were outstanding—but with a big condition. \\nBankDirect demanded, and got, a right to purchase Capital \\nPremium’s business outright after five years. The contract \\nwent into force in December 2010. (Actually there were four \\ncontracts, but we use the singular for simplicity.) The option \\nto purchase could be exercised near the fifth anniversary. If \\nBankDirect elected not to purchase Capital Premium, then \\neither side could extend the term by notice given before Jan‐\\nuary 4, 2016; otherwise the purchase‐and‐service deal would \\nwrap up on January 31, 2016. Any extension could not ex‐\\nceed the contract’s drop‐dead date, June 1, 2018, after which \\nneither side would have any obligation to the other. \\n BankDirect exercised the purchase option in November \\n2015, but Capital Premium refused to honor it. BankDirect \\nfiled this suit under the diversity jurisdiction, seeking to en‐\\nforce the option to purchase. It treated Capital Premium’s \\nrejection of the purchase as a default, which entitled it to \\ntake measures for self‐protection. This led Capital Premium \\nto file a counterclaim. It demanded an injunction that would \\nrequire BankDirect to continue purchasing the loans and \\npaying it to service them. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 3 \\n\\n BankDirect continued dealing with Capital Premium \\nthrough May 1, 2017, when it seized several of Capital Pre‐\\nmium’s accounts and stated that it would no longer buy any \\nloans from Capital Premium. This led Capital Premium to \\nrenew its request for an injunction. For its part, BankDirect \\nwithdrew its request for specific performance of the pur‐\\nchase. (It believes that the parties’ relations have so soured \\nthat an acquisition would fail commercially.) BankDirect \\nagreed to maintain the status quo until the court ruled. \\n Judge Gottschall concluded that Capital Premium is enti‐\\ntled to a preliminary injunction requiring BankDirect to con‐\\ntinue business with Capital Premium in the same way it had \\nbeen doing earlier. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 (N.D. Ill. \\nNov. 29, 2017). The district court contemplated that the loan‐\\npurchase‐and‐service arrangement would continue while it \\nresolved the dispute on the merits. \\n Unfortunately, several things went wrong. \\n First, the district court did not address the significance of \\nthe June 2018 terminal date. The judge may have thought \\nthat the suit would be over by then; at all events, she did not \\nprovide for what was to happen on June 1, 2018, if the litiga‐\\ntion was ongoing. \\n Second, the language that the judge evidently intended \\nto serve as the injunction left unresolved not only the effect \\nof the drop‐dead date but also other disputes. The last para‐\\ngraph of the court’s opinion reads: \\n For the reasons discussed above, Capital Premium’s motion for a \\n preliminary injunction is granted. Accordingly, BankDirect is \\n preliminarily enjoined from terminating Capital Premium as the \\n servicer of loans that Capital Premium originates; interfering \\n with Capital Premium’s control of its deposit accounts; interfer‐\\n\\f4 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\n ing with Capital Premium’s access to its Participation Interest; \\n retaining the $1,000,000 it seized from Capital Premium’s ac‐\\n count on May 1, 2017; and seizing any additional funds from \\n Capital Premium’s accounts, including any portion of the \\n $5,000,000 that BankDirect has demanded. \\n\\n2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 at *40. Much of the parties’ dis‐\\npute on appeal concerns the absence of attention to the con‐\\ntract’s terminal date and the omission of any order with re‐\\nspect to BankDirect’s purchase of loans that Capital Premi‐\\num originates. Nor did the judge pin down ambiguous \\nterms such as “interfering”. Maybe the judge meant to grant \\nwhatever relief Capital Premium had requested, but the \\nopinion does not say this—and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) \\nforbids incorporating another document (such as a motion) \\nby reference. \\n Third, the district court failed to enter an injunction as a \\nseparate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C). Lan‐\\nguage in an opinion does not comply with Rule 65(d). See \\nGunn v. University Committee to End the War, 399 U.S. 383 \\n(1970). Neither side reminded the district court of the need \\nto enter an injunction. \\n Fourth, the district court did not require Capital Premi‐\\num to post a bond, despite Rule 65(c), which says (emphasis \\nadded): “The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a \\ntemporary restraining order only if the movant gives security \\nin an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs \\nand damages sustained by any party found to have been \\nwrongfully enjoined or restrained.” \\n Although BankDirect missed the significance of Rule \\n65(d), it was acutely aware of Rule 65(c). Contending that the \\ninjunction would cost it about $500,000 a month, it asked the \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 5 \\n\\ndistrict court to require Capital Premium to post a substan‐\\ntial bond—for, in the absence of a bond, a litigant injured by \\nan injunction later determined to have been improper does \\nnot have a remedy. See, e.g., Coyne‐Delaney Co. v. Capital De‐\\nvelopment Board, 717 F.2d 385, 393–94 (7th Cir. 1983). That is \\nwhy Rule 65(c) makes the effectiveness of a preliminary in‐\\njunction contingent on the bond having been posted. United \\nStates v. Associated Air Transport, Inc., 256 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. \\n1958); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11A Federal \\nPractice & Procedure §2954 at 319 (3d ed. 2013). A judge might \\nconsider an indemnity of $0 (that is, no bond) “proper” \\nwhen the suit is about constitutional principles rather than \\ncommercial transactions, but no one thinks that condition \\nsatisfied here. \\n The case was transferred to Judge Lee, who found that \\nBankDirect is entitled to a bond of at least $7.5 million but \\ninsisted that it continue to obey the language of Judge \\nGottschall’s opinion in the interim. In response to Capital \\nPremium’s assertions that it lacked the funds to secure a \\nbond—the very situation that should have deferred injunc‐\\ntive relief, lest BankDirect be saddled with losses it could not \\nrecoup—Judge Lee repeatedly extended the time for the \\nbond’s posting. Finally, in November 2018, while this appeal \\nwas under advisement, Capital Premium posted a bond for \\n$7.5 million. BankDirect was at last secured. Still, if it is right \\nthat the preliminary injunction is costing it $500,000 a \\nmonth, the protection has only a short time left to run. \\n In addition to asking Judge Lee for the protection of a \\nbond, BankDirect asked him to specify when the injunction \\nwould end. Judge Lee declined to make an independent de‐\\ncision on that subject. Instead he tried to divine Judge \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nGottschall’s intent about the matter—no easy task, as she \\nhad not said one word about it. Concluding that Judge \\nGottschall had meant the injunction to last at least as long as \\nthe suit remained pending, Judge Lee denied BankDirect’s \\nrequest for a terminal date. Similarly, Judge Lee assumed \\nthat Judge Gottschall must have wanted to compel BankDi‐\\nrect to go on purchasing loans from Capital Premium, even \\nthough the last paragraph of her opinion does not say that. \\n Our initial question is whether we have appellate juris‐\\ndiction. In addition to holding that statements in an opinion \\nare not an injunction, Gunn concludes that the absence of an \\ninjunction satisfying Rule 65(d) prevents a direct appeal \\nfrom a three‐judge district court to the Supreme Court under \\n28 U.S.C. §1253 (1970 ed.). If that’s how §1253 works, maybe \\nthe same is true about §1292(a)(1), which BankDirect in‐\\nvokes. We requested and have received supplemental mem‐\\noranda about that subject. \\n Burgess v. Ryan, 996 F.2d 180, 183–84 (7th Cir. 1993), ob‐\\nserves that §1253 and §1292(a)(1) differ in this respect. Gunn \\nemphasized that appeals from district courts (even three‐\\njudge district courts) direct to the Supreme Court are sup‐\\nposed to be rare. The Justices evidently contemplated that \\ndismissing the appeal under §1253 would allow an appeal to \\nthe court of appeals. Gerstein v. Coe, 417 U.S. 279 (1974); \\nGunn, 399 U.S. at 391 (White, J., concurring). How else could \\nthe violation of Rule 65(d) be corrected? See also Original \\nGreat American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cook‐\\nies, Ltd., 970 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1992). \\n When a district court does not put an order into writing, \\nit is so transparently ineffectual that neither side is adversely \\naffected. That means no appeal, for an empty declaration has \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 7 \\n\\nno loser, and only a district‐court loser can appeal. See Bates \\nv. Johnson, 901 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1990). But Judge Gottschall \\nentered a written order that she expected BankDirect to \\nobey. Judge Lee shared that view even after being reminded \\nthat Rule 65(c) makes the injunction’s effectiveness depend \\non a bond. It would pile injury on injury to tell BankDirect \\nthat it not only was unprotected by a bond for a year but also \\ncould not even obtain appellate review of an order that the \\ndistrict court sees as a long‐term injunction. See Schmidt v. \\nLessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (reversing an injunction that vio‐\\nlated the requirement in Rule 65(d)(1)(B) that every order \\n“state its terms specifically”; this implies that at least some \\nviolations of Rule 65(d) do not defeat appellate jurisdiction). \\n We do not need to say anything about the merits, or more \\nabout Rule 65(c) and (d), because this injunction (as we now \\ncall the last paragraph of Judge Gottschall’s opinion) should \\nhave contained a terminal date: June 1, 2018. As that date has \\npassed, all we need do is vacate the injunction and remand \\nso that the district court can decide whether either side has \\nbroken a promise, and if so what damages are available. \\n Some language in the district court’s opinion suggests \\nthat Judge Gottschall saw the initial end date of January 31, \\n2016, as material only if BankDirect declined to exercise its \\npurchase option. If Capital Premium became a subsidiary of \\nBankDirect, all of the contract’s deadlines would be mean‐\\ningless. Judge Gottschall observed that BankDirect had exer‐\\ncised its option, which meant, she concluded, that the ab‐\\nsence of a renewal notice before January 4, 2016, did not \\ncause the purchase‐and‐service obligations to end on Janu‐\\nary 31, 2016. If this is right, perhaps the same is true about \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nJune 1, 2018: that date loses significance if BankDirect buys \\nthe business. \\n The problem with this line of argument is that BankDi‐\\nrect has not bought Capital Premium’s business. It tried to, \\nbut Capital Premium refused to execute that transaction. \\n(Whether Capital Premium was privileged to make that de‐\\ncision, or instead acted wrongfully, is for the district court to \\nconsider on remand.) Because the sale did not close, the par‐\\nties remain in an arms’‐length business transaction to which \\nthe dates are as important as if BankDirect had never tried to \\nexercise its option. And the most important date is June 1, \\n2018. If the terminal date is extended past January 31, 2016, \\nthe “extended commitment date and new maturity date \\nshall in any such case not be later than June 1, 2018”. So if \\nBankDirect’s unsuccessful effort to buy Capital Premium’s \\nbusiness is treated as extending the deal’s initial date past \\nJanuary 31, 2016, this clause sets a limit. \\n No sensible commercial party wants to be trapped in a \\nlong‐term relation. That’s why contracts such as this include \\ndrop‐dead dates. Yet Capital Premium maintains that \\nBankDirect could not get out by exercising the option to buy \\nthe business—and, precisely because Capital Premium re‐\\nfused to honor its commitment to sell, BankDirect can’t get \\nout any other way, ever. The carefully drafted language of \\nthis contract dispels any suggestion that BankDirect was in‐\\ndifferent to the risks of being locked into a money‐losing re‐\\nlation, of indefinite duration, with a firm that it does not \\ntrust. This contract means what it says. \\n The injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded with \\ninstructions to award BankDirect damages for time the in‐\\njunction has extended past June 1, 2018, and to determine \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 9 \\n\\nwhether either side owes damages to the other for breach of \\ncontract. The mandate will issue today, so that the injunction \\nterminates immediately.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":196,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4580263,"string":"4,580,263"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Bankdirect Capital Finance v. Texas Capital Bank National"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-09"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1054"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\n\\nNo. 18‐1054 \\nBANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, \\n Plaintiff, Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \\n and \\nTEXAS CAPITAL BANK, N.A., \\n Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \\n\\n v. \\n\\nCAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., \\n Defendant, Counterplaintiff‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 15 C 10340 — John Z. Lee, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 31, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 9, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. BankDirect Capital Finance \\nand Capital Premium Financing both participate in the mar‐\\nket for loans to finance insurance premiums. Insurers want \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nto be paid up front for the full policy period, but many busi‐\\nnesses prefer to pay by the month. A premium‐financing \\nloan makes both things possible. The client makes a down \\npayment toward the annual premium and borrows the rest. \\nIt repays the loan monthly. \\n In 2010 Capital Premium, having exhausted the line of \\ncredit that financed its operations, approached its competitor \\nBankDirect with a request for operating capital. BankDirect \\nwas willing to purchase the loans that Capital Premium \\nmade—and to pay Capital Premium to service those loans \\nwhile they were outstanding—but with a big condition. \\nBankDirect demanded, and got, a right to purchase Capital \\nPremium’s business outright after five years. The contract \\nwent into force in December 2010. (Actually there were four \\ncontracts, but we use the singular for simplicity.) The option \\nto purchase could be exercised near the fifth anniversary. If \\nBankDirect elected not to purchase Capital Premium, then \\neither side could extend the term by notice given before Jan‐\\nuary 4, 2016; otherwise the purchase‐and‐service deal would \\nwrap up on January 31, 2016. Any extension could not ex‐\\nceed the contract’s drop‐dead date, June 1, 2018, after which \\nneither side would have any obligation to the other. \\n BankDirect exercised the purchase option in November \\n2015, but Capital Premium refused to honor it. BankDirect \\nfiled this suit under the diversity jurisdiction, seeking to en‐\\nforce the option to purchase. It treated Capital Premium’s \\nrejection of the purchase as a default, which entitled it to \\ntake measures for self‐protection. This led Capital Premium \\nto file a counterclaim. It demanded an injunction that would \\nrequire BankDirect to continue purchasing the loans and \\npaying it to service them. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 3 \\n\\n BankDirect continued dealing with Capital Premium \\nthrough May 1, 2017, when it seized several of Capital Pre‐\\nmium’s accounts and stated that it would no longer buy any \\nloans from Capital Premium. This led Capital Premium to \\nrenew its request for an injunction. For its part, BankDirect \\nwithdrew its request for specific performance of the pur‐\\nchase. (It believes that the parties’ relations have so soured \\nthat an acquisition would fail commercially.) BankDirect \\nagreed to maintain the status quo until the court ruled. \\n Judge Gottschall concluded that Capital Premium is enti‐\\ntled to a preliminary injunction requiring BankDirect to con‐\\ntinue business with Capital Premium in the same way it had \\nbeen doing earlier. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 (N.D. Ill. \\nNov. 29, 2017). The district court contemplated that the loan‐\\npurchase‐and‐service arrangement would continue while it \\nresolved the dispute on the merits. \\n Unfortunately, several things went wrong. \\n First, the district court did not address the significance of \\nthe June 2018 terminal date. The judge may have thought \\nthat the suit would be over by then; at all events, she did not \\nprovide for what was to happen on June 1, 2018, if the litiga‐\\ntion was ongoing. \\n Second, the language that the judge evidently intended \\nto serve as the injunction left unresolved not only the effect \\nof the drop‐dead date but also other disputes. The last para‐\\ngraph of the court’s opinion reads: \\n For the reasons discussed above, Capital Premium’s motion for a \\n preliminary injunction is granted. Accordingly, BankDirect is \\n preliminarily enjoined from terminating Capital Premium as the \\n servicer of loans that Capital Premium originates; interfering \\n with Capital Premium’s control of its deposit accounts; interfer‐\\n\\f4 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\n ing with Capital Premium’s access to its Participation Interest; \\n retaining the $1,000,000 it seized from Capital Premium’s ac‐\\n count on May 1, 2017; and seizing any additional funds from \\n Capital Premium’s accounts, including any portion of the \\n $5,000,000 that BankDirect has demanded. \\n\\n2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 at *40. Much of the parties’ dis‐\\npute on appeal concerns the absence of attention to the con‐\\ntract’s terminal date and the omission of any order with re‐\\nspect to BankDirect’s purchase of loans that Capital Premi‐\\num originates. Nor did the judge pin down ambiguous \\nterms such as “interfering”. Maybe the judge meant to grant \\nwhatever relief Capital Premium had requested, but the \\nopinion does not say this—and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) \\nforbids incorporating another document (such as a motion) \\nby reference. \\n Third, the district court failed to enter an injunction as a \\nseparate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C). Lan‐\\nguage in an opinion does not comply with Rule 65(d). See \\nGunn v. University Committee to End the War, 399 U.S. 383 \\n(1970). Neither side reminded the district court of the need \\nto enter an injunction. \\n Fourth, the district court did not require Capital Premi‐\\num to post a bond, despite Rule 65(c), which says (emphasis \\nadded): “The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a \\ntemporary restraining order only if the movant gives security \\nin an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs \\nand damages sustained by any party found to have been \\nwrongfully enjoined or restrained.” \\n Although BankDirect missed the significance of Rule \\n65(d), it was acutely aware of Rule 65(c). Contending that the \\ninjunction would cost it about $500,000 a month, it asked the \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 5 \\n\\ndistrict court to require Capital Premium to post a substan‐\\ntial bond—for, in the absence of a bond, a litigant injured by \\nan injunction later determined to have been improper does \\nnot have a remedy. See, e.g., Coyne‐Delaney Co. v. Capital De‐\\nvelopment Board, 717 F.2d 385, 393–94 (7th Cir. 1983). That is \\nwhy Rule 65(c) makes the effectiveness of a preliminary in‐\\njunction contingent on the bond having been posted. United \\nStates v. Associated Air Transport, Inc., 256 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. \\n1958); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11A Federal \\nPractice & Procedure §2954 at 319 (3d ed. 2013). A judge might \\nconsider an indemnity of $0 (that is, no bond) “proper” \\nwhen the suit is about constitutional principles rather than \\ncommercial transactions, but no one thinks that condition \\nsatisfied here. \\n The case was transferred to Judge Lee, who found that \\nBankDirect is entitled to a bond of at least $7.5 million but \\ninsisted that it continue to obey the language of Judge \\nGottschall’s opinion in the interim. In response to Capital \\nPremium’s assertions that it lacked the funds to secure a \\nbond—the very situation that should have deferred injunc‐\\ntive relief, lest BankDirect be saddled with losses it could not \\nrecoup—Judge Lee repeatedly extended the time for the \\nbond’s posting. Finally, in November 2018, while this appeal \\nwas under advisement, Capital Premium posted a bond for \\n$7.5 million. BankDirect was at last secured. Still, if it is right \\nthat the preliminary injunction is costing it $500,000 a \\nmonth, the protection has only a short time left to run. \\n In addition to asking Judge Lee for the protection of a \\nbond, BankDirect asked him to specify when the injunction \\nwould end. Judge Lee declined to make an independent de‐\\ncision on that subject. Instead he tried to divine Judge \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nGottschall’s intent about the matter—no easy task, as she \\nhad not said one word about it. Concluding that Judge \\nGottschall had meant the injunction to last at least as long as \\nthe suit remained pending, Judge Lee denied BankDirect’s \\nrequest for a terminal date. Similarly, Judge Lee assumed \\nthat Judge Gottschall must have wanted to compel BankDi‐\\nrect to go on purchasing loans from Capital Premium, even \\nthough the last paragraph of her opinion does not say that. \\n Our initial question is whether we have appellate juris‐\\ndiction. In addition to holding that statements in an opinion \\nare not an injunction, Gunn concludes that the absence of an \\ninjunction satisfying Rule 65(d) prevents a direct appeal \\nfrom a three‐judge district court to the Supreme Court under \\n28 U.S.C. §1253 (1970 ed.). If that’s how §1253 works, maybe \\nthe same is true about §1292(a)(1), which BankDirect in‐\\nvokes. We requested and have received supplemental mem‐\\noranda about that subject. \\n Burgess v. Ryan, 996 F.2d 180, 183–84 (7th Cir. 1993), ob‐\\nserves that §1253 and §1292(a)(1) differ in this respect. Gunn \\nemphasized that appeals from district courts (even three‐\\njudge district courts) direct to the Supreme Court are sup‐\\nposed to be rare. The Justices evidently contemplated that \\ndismissing the appeal under §1253 would allow an appeal to \\nthe court of appeals. Gerstein v. Coe, 417 U.S. 279 (1974); \\nGunn, 399 U.S. at 391 (White, J., concurring). How else could \\nthe violation of Rule 65(d) be corrected? See also Original \\nGreat American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cook‐\\nies, Ltd., 970 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1992). \\n When a district court does not put an order into writing, \\nit is so transparently ineffectual that neither side is adversely \\naffected. That means no appeal, for an empty declaration has \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 7 \\n\\nno loser, and only a district‐court loser can appeal. See Bates \\nv. Johnson, 901 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1990). But Judge Gottschall \\nentered a written order that she expected BankDirect to \\nobey. Judge Lee shared that view even after being reminded \\nthat Rule 65(c) makes the injunction’s effectiveness depend \\non a bond. It would pile injury on injury to tell BankDirect \\nthat it not only was unprotected by a bond for a year but also \\ncould not even obtain appellate review of an order that the \\ndistrict court sees as a long‐term injunction. See Schmidt v. \\nLessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (reversing an injunction that vio‐\\nlated the requirement in Rule 65(d)(1)(B) that every order \\n“state its terms specifically”; this implies that at least some \\nviolations of Rule 65(d) do not defeat appellate jurisdiction). \\n We do not need to say anything about the merits, or more \\nabout Rule 65(c) and (d), because this injunction (as we now \\ncall the last paragraph of Judge Gottschall’s opinion) should \\nhave contained a terminal date: June 1, 2018. As that date has \\npassed, all we need do is vacate the injunction and remand \\nso that the district court can decide whether either side has \\nbroken a promise, and if so what damages are available. \\n Some language in the district court’s opinion suggests \\nthat Judge Gottschall saw the initial end date of January 31, \\n2016, as material only if BankDirect declined to exercise its \\npurchase option. If Capital Premium became a subsidiary of \\nBankDirect, all of the contract’s deadlines would be mean‐\\ningless. Judge Gottschall observed that BankDirect had exer‐\\ncised its option, which meant, she concluded, that the ab‐\\nsence of a renewal notice before January 4, 2016, did not \\ncause the purchase‐and‐service obligations to end on Janu‐\\nary 31, 2016. If this is right, perhaps the same is true about \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nJune 1, 2018: that date loses significance if BankDirect buys \\nthe business. \\n The problem with this line of argument is that BankDi‐\\nrect has not bought Capital Premium’s business. It tried to, \\nbut Capital Premium refused to execute that transaction. \\n(Whether Capital Premium was privileged to make that de‐\\ncision, or instead acted wrongfully, is for the district court to \\nconsider on remand.) Because the sale did not close, the par‐\\nties remain in an arms’‐length business transaction to which \\nthe dates are as important as if BankDirect had never tried to \\nexercise its option. And the most important date is June 1, \\n2018. If the terminal date is extended past January 31, 2016, \\nthe “extended commitment date and new maturity date \\nshall in any such case not be later than June 1, 2018”. So if \\nBankDirect’s unsuccessful effort to buy Capital Premium’s \\nbusiness is treated as extending the deal’s initial date past \\nJanuary 31, 2016, this clause sets a limit. \\n No sensible commercial party wants to be trapped in a \\nlong‐term relation. That’s why contracts such as this include \\ndrop‐dead dates. Yet Capital Premium maintains that \\nBankDirect could not get out by exercising the option to buy \\nthe business—and, precisely because Capital Premium re‐\\nfused to honor its commitment to sell, BankDirect can’t get \\nout any other way, ever. The carefully drafted language of \\nthis contract dispels any suggestion that BankDirect was in‐\\ndifferent to the risks of being locked into a money‐losing re‐\\nlation, of indefinite duration, with a firm that it does not \\ntrust. This contract means what it says. \\n The injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded with \\ninstructions to award BankDirect damages for time the in‐\\njunction has extended past June 1, 2018, and to determine \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 9 \\n\\nwhether either side owes damages to the other for breach of \\ncontract. The mandate will issue today, so that the injunction \\nterminates immediately.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4357516/\", \"author_raw\": \"Frank Hoover Easterbrook\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"FLAUM\": \", Circuit\", \"EASTERBROOK\": \", Circuit\", \"BRENNAN\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580263/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: Bankdirect Capital Finance v. Texas Capital Bank National\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-09\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \n\nNo. 18‐1054 \nBANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, \n Plaintiff, Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \n and \nTEXAS CAPITAL BANK, N.A., \n Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \n\n v. \n\nCAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., \n Defendant, Counterplaintiff‐Appellee. \n ____________________ \n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \n No. 15 C 10340 — John Z. Lee, Judge. \n ____________________ \n\n ARGUED OCTOBER 31, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 9, 2019 \n ____________________ \n\n Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit \nJudges. \n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. BankDirect Capital Finance \nand Capital Premium Financing both participate in the mar‐\nket for loans to finance insurance premiums. Insurers want \n\f2 No. 18‐1054 \n\nto be paid up front for the full policy period, but many busi‐\nnesses prefer to pay by the month. A premium‐financing \nloan makes both things possible. The client makes a down \npayment toward the annual premium and borrows the rest. \nIt repays the loan monthly. \n In 2010 Capital Premium, having exhausted the line of \ncredit that financed its operations, approached its competitor \nBankDirect with a request for operating capital. BankDirect \nwas willing to purchase the loans that Capital Premium \nmade—and to pay Capital Premium to service those loans \nwhile they were outstanding—but with a big condition. \nBankDirect demanded, and got, a right to purchase Capital \nPremium’s business outright after five years. The contract \nwent into force in December 2010. (Actually there were four \ncontracts, but we use the singular for simplicity.) The option \nto purchase could be exercised near the fifth anniversary. If \nBankDirect elected not to purchase Capital Premium, then \neither side could extend the term by notice given before Jan‐\nuary 4, 2016; otherwise the purchase‐and‐service deal would \nwrap up on January 31, 2016. Any extension could not ex‐\nceed the contract’s drop‐dead date, June 1, 2018, after which \nneither side would have any obligation to the other. \n BankDirect exercised the purchase option in November \n2015, but Capital Premium refused to honor it. BankDirect \nfiled this suit under the diversity jurisdiction, seeking to en‐\nforce the option to purchase. It treated Capital Premium’s \nrejection of the purchase as a default, which entitled it to \ntake measures for self‐protection. This led Capital Premium \nto file a counterclaim. It demanded an injunction that would \nrequire BankDirect to continue purchasing the loans and \npaying it to service them. \n\fNo. 18‐1054 3 \n\n BankDirect continued dealing with Capital Premium \nthrough May 1, 2017, when it seized several of Capital Pre‐\nmium’s accounts and stated that it would no longer buy any \nloans from Capital Premium. This led Capital Premium to \nrenew its request for an injunction. For its part, BankDirect \nwithdrew its request for specific performance of the pur‐\nchase. (It believes that the parties’ relations have so soured \nthat an acquisition would fail commercially.) BankDirect \nagreed to maintain the status quo until the court ruled. \n Judge Gottschall concluded that Capital Premium is enti‐\ntled to a preliminary injunction requiring BankDirect to con‐\ntinue business with Capital Premium in the same way it had \nbeen doing earlier. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 (N.D. Ill. \nNov. 29, 2017). The district court contemplated that the loan‐\npurchase‐and‐service arrangement would continue while it \nresolved the dispute on the merits. \n Unfortunately, several things went wrong. \n First, the district court did not address the significance of \nthe June 2018 terminal date. The judge may have thought \nthat the suit would be over by then; at all events, she did not \nprovide for what was to happen on June 1, 2018, if the litiga‐\ntion was ongoing. \n Second, the language that the judge evidently intended \nto serve as the injunction left unresolved not only the effect \nof the drop‐dead date but also other disputes. The last para‐\ngraph of the court’s opinion reads: \n For the reasons discussed above, Capital Premium’s motion for a \n preliminary injunction is granted. Accordingly, BankDirect is \n preliminarily enjoined from terminating Capital Premium as the \n servicer of loans that Capital Premium originates; interfering \n with Capital Premium’s control of its deposit accounts; interfer‐\n\f4 No. 18‐1054 \n\n ing with Capital Premium’s access to its Participation Interest; \n retaining the $1,000,000 it seized from Capital Premium’s ac‐\n count on May 1, 2017; and seizing any additional funds from \n Capital Premium’s accounts, including any portion of the \n $5,000,000 that BankDirect has demanded. \n\n2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 at *40. Much of the parties’ dis‐\npute on appeal concerns the absence of attention to the con‐\ntract’s terminal date and the omission of any order with re‐\nspect to BankDirect’s purchase of loans that Capital Premi‐\num originates. Nor did the judge pin down ambiguous \nterms such as “interfering”. Maybe the judge meant to grant \nwhatever relief Capital Premium had requested, but the \nopinion does not say this—and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) \nforbids incorporating another document (such as a motion) \nby reference. \n Third, the district court failed to enter an injunction as a \nseparate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C). Lan‐\nguage in an opinion does not comply with Rule 65(d). See \nGunn v. University Committee to End the War, 399 U.S. 383 \n(1970). Neither side reminded the district court of the need \nto enter an injunction. \n Fourth, the district court did not require Capital Premi‐\num to post a bond, despite Rule 65(c), which says (emphasis \nadded): “The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a \ntemporary restraining order only if the movant gives security \nin an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs \nand damages sustained by any party found to have been \nwrongfully enjoined or restrained.” \n Although BankDirect missed the significance of Rule \n65(d), it was acutely aware of Rule 65(c). Contending that the \ninjunction would cost it about $500,000 a month, it asked the \n\fNo. 18‐1054 5 \n\ndistrict court to require Capital Premium to post a substan‐\ntial bond—for, in the absence of a bond, a litigant injured by \nan injunction later determined to have been improper does \nnot have a remedy. See, e.g., Coyne‐Delaney Co. v. Capital De‐\nvelopment Board, 717 F.2d 385, 393–94 (7th Cir. 1983). That is \nwhy Rule 65(c) makes the effectiveness of a preliminary in‐\njunction contingent on the bond having been posted. United \nStates v. Associated Air Transport, Inc., 256 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. \n1958); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11A Federal \nPractice & Procedure §2954 at 319 (3d ed. 2013). A judge might \nconsider an indemnity of $0 (that is, no bond) “proper” \nwhen the suit is about constitutional principles rather than \ncommercial transactions, but no one thinks that condition \nsatisfied here. \n The case was transferred to Judge Lee, who found that \nBankDirect is entitled to a bond of at least $7.5 million but \ninsisted that it continue to obey the language of Judge \nGottschall’s opinion in the interim. In response to Capital \nPremium’s assertions that it lacked the funds to secure a \nbond—the very situation that should have deferred injunc‐\ntive relief, lest BankDirect be saddled with losses it could not \nrecoup—Judge Lee repeatedly extended the time for the \nbond’s posting. Finally, in November 2018, while this appeal \nwas under advisement, Capital Premium posted a bond for \n$7.5 million. BankDirect was at last secured. Still, if it is right \nthat the preliminary injunction is costing it $500,000 a \nmonth, the protection has only a short time left to run. \n In addition to asking Judge Lee for the protection of a \nbond, BankDirect asked him to specify when the injunction \nwould end. Judge Lee declined to make an independent de‐\ncision on that subject. Instead he tried to divine Judge \n\f6 No. 18‐1054 \n\nGottschall’s intent about the matter—no easy task, as she \nhad not said one word about it. Concluding that Judge \nGottschall had meant the injunction to last at least as long as \nthe suit remained pending, Judge Lee denied BankDirect’s \nrequest for a terminal date. Similarly, Judge Lee assumed \nthat Judge Gottschall must have wanted to compel BankDi‐\nrect to go on purchasing loans from Capital Premium, even \nthough the last paragraph of her opinion does not say that. \n Our initial question is whether we have appellate juris‐\ndiction. In addition to holding that statements in an opinion \nare not an injunction, Gunn concludes that the absence of an \ninjunction satisfying Rule 65(d) prevents a direct appeal \nfrom a three‐judge district court to the Supreme Court under \n28 U.S.C. §1253 (1970 ed.). If that’s how §1253 works, maybe \nthe same is true about §1292(a)(1), which BankDirect in‐\nvokes. We requested and have received supplemental mem‐\noranda about that subject. \n Burgess v. Ryan, 996 F.2d 180, 183–84 (7th Cir. 1993), ob‐\nserves that §1253 and §1292(a)(1) differ in this respect. Gunn \nemphasized that appeals from district courts (even three‐\njudge district courts) direct to the Supreme Court are sup‐\nposed to be rare. The Justices evidently contemplated that \ndismissing the appeal under §1253 would allow an appeal to \nthe court of appeals. Gerstein v. Coe, 417 U.S. 279 (1974); \nGunn, 399 U.S. at 391 (White, J., concurring). How else could \nthe violation of Rule 65(d) be corrected? See also Original \nGreat American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cook‐\nies, Ltd., 970 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1992). \n When a district court does not put an order into writing, \nit is so transparently ineffectual that neither side is adversely \naffected. That means no appeal, for an empty declaration has \n\fNo. 18‐1054 7 \n\nno loser, and only a district‐court loser can appeal. See Bates \nv. Johnson, 901 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1990). But Judge Gottschall \nentered a written order that she expected BankDirect to \nobey. Judge Lee shared that view even after being reminded \nthat Rule 65(c) makes the injunction’s effectiveness depend \non a bond. It would pile injury on injury to tell BankDirect \nthat it not only was unprotected by a bond for a year but also \ncould not even obtain appellate review of an order that the \ndistrict court sees as a long‐term injunction. See Schmidt v. \nLessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (reversing an injunction that vio‐\nlated the requirement in Rule 65(d)(1)(B) that every order \n“state its terms specifically”; this implies that at least some \nviolations of Rule 65(d) do not defeat appellate jurisdiction). \n We do not need to say anything about the merits, or more \nabout Rule 65(c) and (d), because this injunction (as we now \ncall the last paragraph of Judge Gottschall’s opinion) should \nhave contained a terminal date: June 1, 2018. As that date has \npassed, all we need do is vacate the injunction and remand \nso that the district court can decide whether either side has \nbroken a promise, and if so what damages are available. \n Some language in the district court’s opinion suggests \nthat Judge Gottschall saw the initial end date of January 31, \n2016, as material only if BankDirect declined to exercise its \npurchase option. If Capital Premium became a subsidiary of \nBankDirect, all of the contract’s deadlines would be mean‐\ningless. Judge Gottschall observed that BankDirect had exer‐\ncised its option, which meant, she concluded, that the ab‐\nsence of a renewal notice before January 4, 2016, did not \ncause the purchase‐and‐service obligations to end on Janu‐\nary 31, 2016. If this is right, perhaps the same is true about \n\f8 No. 18‐1054 \n\nJune 1, 2018: that date loses significance if BankDirect buys \nthe business. \n The problem with this line of argument is that BankDi‐\nrect has not bought Capital Premium’s business. It tried to, \nbut Capital Premium refused to execute that transaction. \n(Whether Capital Premium was privileged to make that de‐\ncision, or instead acted wrongfully, is for the district court to \nconsider on remand.) Because the sale did not close, the par‐\nties remain in an arms’‐length business transaction to which \nthe dates are as important as if BankDirect had never tried to \nexercise its option. And the most important date is June 1, \n2018. If the terminal date is extended past January 31, 2016, \nthe “extended commitment date and new maturity date \nshall in any such case not be later than June 1, 2018”. So if \nBankDirect’s unsuccessful effort to buy Capital Premium’s \nbusiness is treated as extending the deal’s initial date past \nJanuary 31, 2016, this clause sets a limit. \n No sensible commercial party wants to be trapped in a \nlong‐term relation. That’s why contracts such as this include \ndrop‐dead dates. Yet Capital Premium maintains that \nBankDirect could not get out by exercising the option to buy \nthe business—and, precisely because Capital Premium re‐\nfused to honor its commitment to sell, BankDirect can’t get \nout any other way, ever. The carefully drafted language of \nthis contract dispels any suggestion that BankDirect was in‐\ndifferent to the risks of being locked into a money‐losing re‐\nlation, of indefinite duration, with a firm that it does not \ntrust. This contract means what it says. \n The injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded with \ninstructions to award BankDirect damages for time the in‐\njunction has extended past June 1, 2018, and to determine \n\fNo. 18‐1054 9 \n\nwhether either side owes damages to the other for breach of \ncontract. The mandate will issue today, so that the injunction \nterminates immediately.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: Bankdirect Capital Finance v. Texas Capital Bank National\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-09\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\n ____________________ \\n\\nNo. 18‐1054 \\nBANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, \\n Plaintiff, Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \\n and \\nTEXAS CAPITAL BANK, N.A., \\n Counterdefendant‐Appellant, \\n\\n v. \\n\\nCAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., \\n Defendant, Counterplaintiff‐Appellee. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the \\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. \\n No. 15 C 10340 — John Z. Lee, Judge. \\n ____________________ \\n\\n ARGUED OCTOBER 31, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 9, 2019 \\n ____________________ \\n\\n Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit \\nJudges. \\n EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. BankDirect Capital Finance \\nand Capital Premium Financing both participate in the mar‐\\nket for loans to finance insurance premiums. Insurers want \\n\\f2 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nto be paid up front for the full policy period, but many busi‐\\nnesses prefer to pay by the month. A premium‐financing \\nloan makes both things possible. The client makes a down \\npayment toward the annual premium and borrows the rest. \\nIt repays the loan monthly. \\n In 2010 Capital Premium, having exhausted the line of \\ncredit that financed its operations, approached its competitor \\nBankDirect with a request for operating capital. BankDirect \\nwas willing to purchase the loans that Capital Premium \\nmade—and to pay Capital Premium to service those loans \\nwhile they were outstanding—but with a big condition. \\nBankDirect demanded, and got, a right to purchase Capital \\nPremium’s business outright after five years. The contract \\nwent into force in December 2010. (Actually there were four \\ncontracts, but we use the singular for simplicity.) The option \\nto purchase could be exercised near the fifth anniversary. If \\nBankDirect elected not to purchase Capital Premium, then \\neither side could extend the term by notice given before Jan‐\\nuary 4, 2016; otherwise the purchase‐and‐service deal would \\nwrap up on January 31, 2016. Any extension could not ex‐\\nceed the contract’s drop‐dead date, June 1, 2018, after which \\nneither side would have any obligation to the other. \\n BankDirect exercised the purchase option in November \\n2015, but Capital Premium refused to honor it. BankDirect \\nfiled this suit under the diversity jurisdiction, seeking to en‐\\nforce the option to purchase. It treated Capital Premium’s \\nrejection of the purchase as a default, which entitled it to \\ntake measures for self‐protection. This led Capital Premium \\nto file a counterclaim. It demanded an injunction that would \\nrequire BankDirect to continue purchasing the loans and \\npaying it to service them. \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 3 \\n\\n BankDirect continued dealing with Capital Premium \\nthrough May 1, 2017, when it seized several of Capital Pre‐\\nmium’s accounts and stated that it would no longer buy any \\nloans from Capital Premium. This led Capital Premium to \\nrenew its request for an injunction. For its part, BankDirect \\nwithdrew its request for specific performance of the pur‐\\nchase. (It believes that the parties’ relations have so soured \\nthat an acquisition would fail commercially.) BankDirect \\nagreed to maintain the status quo until the court ruled. \\n Judge Gottschall concluded that Capital Premium is enti‐\\ntled to a preliminary injunction requiring BankDirect to con‐\\ntinue business with Capital Premium in the same way it had \\nbeen doing earlier. 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 (N.D. Ill. \\nNov. 29, 2017). The district court contemplated that the loan‐\\npurchase‐and‐service arrangement would continue while it \\nresolved the dispute on the merits. \\n Unfortunately, several things went wrong. \\n First, the district court did not address the significance of \\nthe June 2018 terminal date. The judge may have thought \\nthat the suit would be over by then; at all events, she did not \\nprovide for what was to happen on June 1, 2018, if the litiga‐\\ntion was ongoing. \\n Second, the language that the judge evidently intended \\nto serve as the injunction left unresolved not only the effect \\nof the drop‐dead date but also other disputes. The last para‐\\ngraph of the court’s opinion reads: \\n For the reasons discussed above, Capital Premium’s motion for a \\n preliminary injunction is granted. Accordingly, BankDirect is \\n preliminarily enjoined from terminating Capital Premium as the \\n servicer of loans that Capital Premium originates; interfering \\n with Capital Premium’s control of its deposit accounts; interfer‐\\n\\f4 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\n ing with Capital Premium’s access to its Participation Interest; \\n retaining the $1,000,000 it seized from Capital Premium’s ac‐\\n count on May 1, 2017; and seizing any additional funds from \\n Capital Premium’s accounts, including any portion of the \\n $5,000,000 that BankDirect has demanded. \\n\\n2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195519 at *40. Much of the parties’ dis‐\\npute on appeal concerns the absence of attention to the con‐\\ntract’s terminal date and the omission of any order with re‐\\nspect to BankDirect’s purchase of loans that Capital Premi‐\\num originates. Nor did the judge pin down ambiguous \\nterms such as “interfering”. Maybe the judge meant to grant \\nwhatever relief Capital Premium had requested, but the \\nopinion does not say this—and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) \\nforbids incorporating another document (such as a motion) \\nby reference. \\n Third, the district court failed to enter an injunction as a \\nseparate document under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C). Lan‐\\nguage in an opinion does not comply with Rule 65(d). See \\nGunn v. University Committee to End the War, 399 U.S. 383 \\n(1970). Neither side reminded the district court of the need \\nto enter an injunction. \\n Fourth, the district court did not require Capital Premi‐\\num to post a bond, despite Rule 65(c), which says (emphasis \\nadded): “The court may issue a preliminary injunction or a \\ntemporary restraining order only if the movant gives security \\nin an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs \\nand damages sustained by any party found to have been \\nwrongfully enjoined or restrained.” \\n Although BankDirect missed the significance of Rule \\n65(d), it was acutely aware of Rule 65(c). Contending that the \\ninjunction would cost it about $500,000 a month, it asked the \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 5 \\n\\ndistrict court to require Capital Premium to post a substan‐\\ntial bond—for, in the absence of a bond, a litigant injured by \\nan injunction later determined to have been improper does \\nnot have a remedy. See, e.g., Coyne‐Delaney Co. v. Capital De‐\\nvelopment Board, 717 F.2d 385, 393–94 (7th Cir. 1983). That is \\nwhy Rule 65(c) makes the effectiveness of a preliminary in‐\\njunction contingent on the bond having been posted. United \\nStates v. Associated Air Transport, Inc., 256 F.2d 857 (5th Cir. \\n1958); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 11A Federal \\nPractice & Procedure §2954 at 319 (3d ed. 2013). A judge might \\nconsider an indemnity of $0 (that is, no bond) “proper” \\nwhen the suit is about constitutional principles rather than \\ncommercial transactions, but no one thinks that condition \\nsatisfied here. \\n The case was transferred to Judge Lee, who found that \\nBankDirect is entitled to a bond of at least $7.5 million but \\ninsisted that it continue to obey the language of Judge \\nGottschall’s opinion in the interim. In response to Capital \\nPremium’s assertions that it lacked the funds to secure a \\nbond—the very situation that should have deferred injunc‐\\ntive relief, lest BankDirect be saddled with losses it could not \\nrecoup—Judge Lee repeatedly extended the time for the \\nbond’s posting. Finally, in November 2018, while this appeal \\nwas under advisement, Capital Premium posted a bond for \\n$7.5 million. BankDirect was at last secured. Still, if it is right \\nthat the preliminary injunction is costing it $500,000 a \\nmonth, the protection has only a short time left to run. \\n In addition to asking Judge Lee for the protection of a \\nbond, BankDirect asked him to specify when the injunction \\nwould end. Judge Lee declined to make an independent de‐\\ncision on that subject. Instead he tried to divine Judge \\n\\f6 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nGottschall’s intent about the matter—no easy task, as she \\nhad not said one word about it. Concluding that Judge \\nGottschall had meant the injunction to last at least as long as \\nthe suit remained pending, Judge Lee denied BankDirect’s \\nrequest for a terminal date. Similarly, Judge Lee assumed \\nthat Judge Gottschall must have wanted to compel BankDi‐\\nrect to go on purchasing loans from Capital Premium, even \\nthough the last paragraph of her opinion does not say that. \\n Our initial question is whether we have appellate juris‐\\ndiction. In addition to holding that statements in an opinion \\nare not an injunction, Gunn concludes that the absence of an \\ninjunction satisfying Rule 65(d) prevents a direct appeal \\nfrom a three‐judge district court to the Supreme Court under \\n28 U.S.C. §1253 (1970 ed.). If that’s how §1253 works, maybe \\nthe same is true about §1292(a)(1), which BankDirect in‐\\nvokes. We requested and have received supplemental mem‐\\noranda about that subject. \\n Burgess v. Ryan, 996 F.2d 180, 183–84 (7th Cir. 1993), ob‐\\nserves that §1253 and §1292(a)(1) differ in this respect. Gunn \\nemphasized that appeals from district courts (even three‐\\njudge district courts) direct to the Supreme Court are sup‐\\nposed to be rare. The Justices evidently contemplated that \\ndismissing the appeal under §1253 would allow an appeal to \\nthe court of appeals. Gerstein v. Coe, 417 U.S. 279 (1974); \\nGunn, 399 U.S. at 391 (White, J., concurring). How else could \\nthe violation of Rule 65(d) be corrected? See also Original \\nGreat American Chocolate Chip Cookie Co. v. River Valley Cook‐\\nies, Ltd., 970 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1992). \\n When a district court does not put an order into writing, \\nit is so transparently ineffectual that neither side is adversely \\naffected. That means no appeal, for an empty declaration has \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 7 \\n\\nno loser, and only a district‐court loser can appeal. See Bates \\nv. Johnson, 901 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1990). But Judge Gottschall \\nentered a written order that she expected BankDirect to \\nobey. Judge Lee shared that view even after being reminded \\nthat Rule 65(c) makes the injunction’s effectiveness depend \\non a bond. It would pile injury on injury to tell BankDirect \\nthat it not only was unprotected by a bond for a year but also \\ncould not even obtain appellate review of an order that the \\ndistrict court sees as a long‐term injunction. See Schmidt v. \\nLessard, 414 U.S. 473 (1974) (reversing an injunction that vio‐\\nlated the requirement in Rule 65(d)(1)(B) that every order \\n“state its terms specifically”; this implies that at least some \\nviolations of Rule 65(d) do not defeat appellate jurisdiction). \\n We do not need to say anything about the merits, or more \\nabout Rule 65(c) and (d), because this injunction (as we now \\ncall the last paragraph of Judge Gottschall’s opinion) should \\nhave contained a terminal date: June 1, 2018. As that date has \\npassed, all we need do is vacate the injunction and remand \\nso that the district court can decide whether either side has \\nbroken a promise, and if so what damages are available. \\n Some language in the district court’s opinion suggests \\nthat Judge Gottschall saw the initial end date of January 31, \\n2016, as material only if BankDirect declined to exercise its \\npurchase option. If Capital Premium became a subsidiary of \\nBankDirect, all of the contract’s deadlines would be mean‐\\ningless. Judge Gottschall observed that BankDirect had exer‐\\ncised its option, which meant, she concluded, that the ab‐\\nsence of a renewal notice before January 4, 2016, did not \\ncause the purchase‐and‐service obligations to end on Janu‐\\nary 31, 2016. If this is right, perhaps the same is true about \\n\\f8 No. 18‐1054 \\n\\nJune 1, 2018: that date loses significance if BankDirect buys \\nthe business. \\n The problem with this line of argument is that BankDi‐\\nrect has not bought Capital Premium’s business. It tried to, \\nbut Capital Premium refused to execute that transaction. \\n(Whether Capital Premium was privileged to make that de‐\\ncision, or instead acted wrongfully, is for the district court to \\nconsider on remand.) Because the sale did not close, the par‐\\nties remain in an arms’‐length business transaction to which \\nthe dates are as important as if BankDirect had never tried to \\nexercise its option. And the most important date is June 1, \\n2018. If the terminal date is extended past January 31, 2016, \\nthe “extended commitment date and new maturity date \\nshall in any such case not be later than June 1, 2018”. So if \\nBankDirect’s unsuccessful effort to buy Capital Premium’s \\nbusiness is treated as extending the deal’s initial date past \\nJanuary 31, 2016, this clause sets a limit. \\n No sensible commercial party wants to be trapped in a \\nlong‐term relation. That’s why contracts such as this include \\ndrop‐dead dates. Yet Capital Premium maintains that \\nBankDirect could not get out by exercising the option to buy \\nthe business—and, precisely because Capital Premium re‐\\nfused to honor its commitment to sell, BankDirect can’t get \\nout any other way, ever. The carefully drafted language of \\nthis contract dispels any suggestion that BankDirect was in‐\\ndifferent to the risks of being locked into a money‐losing re‐\\nlation, of indefinite duration, with a firm that it does not \\ntrust. This contract means what it says. \\n The injunction is vacated, and the case is remanded with \\ninstructions to award BankDirect damages for time the in‐\\njunction has extended past June 1, 2018, and to determine \\n\\fNo. 18‐1054 9 \\n\\nwhether either side owes damages to the other for breach of \\ncontract. The mandate will issue today, so that the injunction \\nterminates immediately.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":197,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":8443836,"string":"8,443,836"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"BANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, Counterdefendant-Appellant, and Texas Capital Bank, N.A., Counterdefendant-Appellant v. CAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., Counterplaintiff-Appellee."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"Bankdirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Capital Premium Fin., Inc."},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-09"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"No. 18-1054"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Brennan, Easterbrook, Flaum\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"\", \"type\": \"020lead\", \"text\": \"\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415262/\", \"author_raw\": \"\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BRENNAN"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"EASTERBROOK"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"FLAUM"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443836/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: BANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, Counterdefendant-Appellant, and Texas Capital Bank, N.A., Counterdefendant-Appellant v. CAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., Counterplaintiff-Appellee.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-09\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: BANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, Counterdefendant-Appellant, and Texas Capital Bank, N.A., Counterdefendant-Appellant v. CAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., Counterplaintiff-Appellee.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-09\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":198,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4580663,"string":"4,580,663"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo BUSTOS, Defendant-Appellant."},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Arturo Bustos"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-10"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1388"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Bauer, Rovner, Eve\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-1388\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nARTURO BUSTOS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 CR 00668-4 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 10, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Arturo Bustos conspired with his co-\\ndefendants to deliver 995 grams of heroin to an undercover\\nofficer. Bustos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to\\ndistribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 100-\\nmonths imprisonment. Bustos now appeals his 100-month\\nsentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1388\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Arturo Bustos, Enemicio Bustos, Omar Landa, and Tomas\\nLanda conspired to sell heroin to an undercover officer\\n(“UCO”). Arturo and Enemicio engaged in multiple phone\\nconversations with the UCO, arranging a date, time, and\\nlocation to sell 995 grams of heroin for $180,000. On\\nOctober 12, 2016, Enemicio drove Arturo to the meet location.\\nArturo entered the UCO’s car and instructed him to drive to a\\nsecond location where he would receive the heroin. At the\\nsecond location, Omar entered the vehicle to verify that the\\nUCO brought the $180,000 in cash. With the cash verified,\\nTomas then arrived carrying a firearm and the 995 grams of\\nheroin.\\n The four men were charged with conspiracy to possess and\\ndistribute a mixture containing 100 grams or more of heroin on\\nOctober 12, 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846\\n(Count Two), and distribution of 100 or more grams of heroin\\nin violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (2) (Count Three).\\nEnemicio was additionally charged with violating 21 U.S.C.\\n§ 841(a)(1) for a previous heroin deal which took place on\\nSeptember 9, 2016 (Count One). Tomas was additionally\\ncharged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug\\ntrafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Four).\\nEnemicio, whose criminal history consisted of one prior\\nburglary charge, was sentenced to 65 months of imprisonment.\\nTomas received a 110-month sentence.\\n Arturo admitted that he agreed to distribute 995 grams of\\nheroin to the UCO and pleaded guilty to Count Two of the\\nindictment. He admitted that he and Enemicio engaged in\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 3\\n\\nphone conversations with the UCO to set up the transaction\\nand that he and Omar met with the UCO to verify he had the\\ncash necessary to buy the heroin.\\n At the sentencing hearing, the district court calculated\\nArturo’s criminal history category as V for the following\\nreasons. On September 24, 2009, Arturo was convicted of\\nmanufacturing and delivering cocaine. Although an arrest\\nwarrant was issued, and he was charged in 1990, he avoided\\narrest and sentencing until 2009. If the 1990 case had proceeded\\nat a more typical pace, this conviction would have been too old\\nto enhance the criminal history calculation and resulted in a\\ncriminal history category of III, which carries a recommended\\nsentencing range of 70 to 87 months. Arturo was also convicted\\nof two newly committed offenses: possession of a controlled\\nsubstance and possession of an altered identification card.\\nArturo committed the instant offense while on parole from his\\n12–year sentence for the above convictions. Arturo also had\\ntwo convictions that were too old to warrant additional\\ncriminal history points.1\\n The criminal history category of V, together with the\\nadjusted offense level of 25 based on the quantity of heroin,\\nresulted in an advisory sentencing range of 100-125 months\\nimprisonment, with a statutory mandatory minimum sentence\\nof 60 months. Arturo made no objection to the Guidelines\\ncalculation.\\n\\n\\n\\n1\\n In 1979, Arturo was convicted of distribution of heroin and was\\nsentenced to five years’ probation. In 1985, he was sentenced to one year of\\nprobation for resisting a peace officer.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1388\\n\\n Rather than argue the calculations were incorrect, Arturo\\nargued a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months imprison-\\nment was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserted the\\ncriminal history calculation “over represented” his criminal\\nhistory due to the time between the 1990 crime and his\\nconviction. Arturo also argued that his co-defendants played\\na larger role in the conspiracy and a lower sentence would\\navoid a disparity between his sentence and Enemicio’s. Arturo\\noffered his advanced age, poor health, and low likelihood of\\nrecidivism as additional factors favoring a downward depar-\\nture from the Guidelines range. Lastly, Arturo argued that he\\nfaced harsh conditions in pre-trial detention due to his health\\nand would face harsh conditions in prison because of his status\\nas a deportable alien. This status, he asserted, prevented him\\nfrom accessing Bureau of Prison programs and resources\\nincluding the residential drug treatment program, which could\\nreduce his term of imprisonment by one year.\\n After Arturo’s argument, the court went over the factors it\\nconsidered important in determining the sentence. The court\\ncited the seriousness of trafficking a significant amount of\\nheroin, the disastrous effects of the illicit drug trade on\\ncommunities, and the fact that Arturo had been involved in\\ndealing drugs for over 30 years. The court noted that he\\nsquandered the opportunity to correct his behavior after\\nreceiving only probation for his 1979 conviction and found it\\ninappropriate to give him a below-Guidelines sentence\\nconsidering his prior history and the fact that the instant\\noffense was committed while he was on parole for his 2009\\nconviction. The court considered the fact that Arturo came into\\nthe conspiracy at a later stage than Enemicio but concluded\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 5\\n\\nthat his role was significant. The court discussed several of the\\nmitigating factors emphasized by Arturo, including his\\naddiction problems and his poor childhood.\\n Taking all of this into account, the court imposed the lowest\\npossible within-Guidelines sentence of 100-months imprison-\\nment.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n This court reviews de novo claims of procedural error at\\nsentencing. United States v. Banks, 828 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.\\n2016). Procedural error occurs when a court “fails to calculate\\n(or improperly calculates) the Guidelines range, treats the\\nGuidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors,\\nselects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to\\nadequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court must also “consider a\\ndefendant's principal, nonfrivolous arguments for lenience.”\\nUnited States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684, 687 (7th Cir. 2013)\\n(per curiam). In considering such arguments, the judge must\\ndemonstrate that he “has considered the parties arguments and\\nhas a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-\\nmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356\\n(2007).\\n The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the\\ndistrict court gave thorough consideration to the facts of this\\ncase and to the defendant’s arguments. It discussed the\\nseriousness of the offense and rejected Arturo’s attempt to\\nminimize the role he played in the conspiracy. The court did so\\ncorrectly. Arturo admitted in his plea agreement that he helped\\nto arrange the meeting location for the drug deal, and partici-\\n\\f6 No. 18-1388\\n\\npated in determining the quantity and price of the drugs to be\\nsold. Arturo then personally participated in the drug deal by\\nmeeting with the UCO. Though he was not involved in the\\nconspiracy from the outset, once he joined he was involved\\ncompletely and played a critical role.\\n The court also rejected Arturo’s argument that his past\\ncriminal conduct was over-represented. There is no error in\\nthe court’s rejection of Arturo’s argument that his avoidance\\nof arrest and sentencing for nearly 20 years was mitigating.\\nTo conclude otherwise would minimize Arturo’s conduct\\nand reward his successful flight from justice. The court\\nappropriately determined that Arturo’s criminal history\\nenhanced the need to promote respect for the law and provide\\ndeterrence. This history of criminal conduct explains the\\ndisparity between Arturo’s sentence and his co-defendants.\\nArturo’s more extensive criminal history warranted a longer\\nsentence.\\n While the court did not directly comment on Arturo’s\\nhealth or status as a deportable alien in its discussion of the\\n§ 3553(a) factors at the sentencing hearing, we do not require\\ndistrict courts to treat sentencing factors as a checklist or to\\nspell out their analyses of each factor. See, e.g., United States v.\\nPanaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The\\ndistrict court need not address each § 3553(a) factor in checklist\\nfashion, explicitly articulating its conclusion for each factor;\\nrather, the court must simply give an adequate statement of\\nreasons, consistent with § 3553(a), for believing the sentence it\\nselects is appropriate.”). It is enough that the record confirms\\nthat the court has given meaningful consideration to the\\n§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478, 480\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 7\\n\\n(7th Cir. 2005). Arturo has merely demonstrated through his\\narguments and legal authority cited that the court could have\\nexercised its discretion with a more lenient sentence.\\n Arturo’s argument that recidivism rates for those over 60\\nyears of age is “nearly zero percent” rings hollow in light of the\\nfact that Arturo committed this third drug offense at the age\\nof 62. The district court noted:\\n It is tragic that [Arturo] is 62 years of age, and at\\n this time in this life finds himself in this situa-\\n tion with really nothing. But there is nothing I\\n can do about the defendant’s own deliberate\\n choice of lifestyle. He made these decisions that\\n brought him here today, to continue to commit\\n offenses, to continue to sell illegal drugs, to\\n continue to violate the law even into his late\\n years. I see no likelihood that this defendant’s\\n age will in any way be a deterrent to further\\n criminal conduct.\\n And as to his health, Arturo presented no evidence that the\\nBureau of Prisons would be unable to provide him with\\nadequate healthcare.\\n The district court rejected Arturo’s argument regarding his\\ndeportable status implicitly, noting that the fact that Arturo\\nwould be deported would make him unlikely to face addi-\\ntional state charges after his release. The court also stated, after\\ndiscussing the § 3553(a) factors, that Arturo would not be\\nrequired to report to a probation office for supervised release\\nnor would the conditions of his supervised release be applica-\\nble if he is deported to Mexico. The court further declared that\\n\\f8 No. 18-1388\\n\\nArturo should be given an opportunity to participate in the\\nresidential drug treatment program by the Bureau of Prisons\\ndespite his immigration status.\\n Arturo also argues that the 100-month sentence was\\nsubstantively unreasonable. We presume that a within-\\nGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States\\nv. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Arturo bears the\\nburden of overcoming that presumption of reasonableness.\\nUnited States v. Cunningham, 883 F.3d 690, 701 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nHe attempts to rebut that presumption by arguing his sentence\\n“results in essentially a life sentence driven primarily by the\\nAppellant’s over-represented criminal history despite the\\nAppellant’s relatively minor role in the instant offense.” The\\ndistrict court rejected the argument that Arturo’s criminal\\nhistory was over-represented, and this court agrees. Arturo\\nhas not shouldered his burden of showing the sentence was\\nunreasonable, and failed to show that the district court did not\\ngive meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Meaningful consideration was given to Arturo’s arguments\\nin favor of mitigation, the 100-month within-Guidelines\\nsentence was substantively reasonable, and the sentencing\\norder is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4357916/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":""},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580663/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo BUSTOS, Defendant-Appellant.\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-10\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-1388\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n\nARTURO BUSTOS,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 CR 00668-4 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 10, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Arturo Bustos conspired with his co-\ndefendants to deliver 995 grams of heroin to an undercover\nofficer. Bustos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to\ndistribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 100-\nmonths imprisonment. Bustos now appeals his 100-month\nsentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\n\f2 No. 18-1388\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n Arturo Bustos, Enemicio Bustos, Omar Landa, and Tomas\nLanda conspired to sell heroin to an undercover officer\n(“UCO”). Arturo and Enemicio engaged in multiple phone\nconversations with the UCO, arranging a date, time, and\nlocation to sell 995 grams of heroin for $180,000. On\nOctober 12, 2016, Enemicio drove Arturo to the meet location.\nArturo entered the UCO’s car and instructed him to drive to a\nsecond location where he would receive the heroin. At the\nsecond location, Omar entered the vehicle to verify that the\nUCO brought the $180,000 in cash. With the cash verified,\nTomas then arrived carrying a firearm and the 995 grams of\nheroin.\n The four men were charged with conspiracy to possess and\ndistribute a mixture containing 100 grams or more of heroin on\nOctober 12, 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846\n(Count Two), and distribution of 100 or more grams of heroin\nin violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (2) (Count Three).\nEnemicio was additionally charged with violating 21 U.S.C.\n§ 841(a)(1) for a previous heroin deal which took place on\nSeptember 9, 2016 (Count One). Tomas was additionally\ncharged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug\ntrafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Four).\nEnemicio, whose criminal history consisted of one prior\nburglary charge, was sentenced to 65 months of imprisonment.\nTomas received a 110-month sentence.\n Arturo admitted that he agreed to distribute 995 grams of\nheroin to the UCO and pleaded guilty to Count Two of the\nindictment. He admitted that he and Enemicio engaged in\n\fNo. 18-1388 3\n\nphone conversations with the UCO to set up the transaction\nand that he and Omar met with the UCO to verify he had the\ncash necessary to buy the heroin.\n At the sentencing hearing, the district court calculated\nArturo’s criminal history category as V for the following\nreasons. On September 24, 2009, Arturo was convicted of\nmanufacturing and delivering cocaine. Although an arrest\nwarrant was issued, and he was charged in 1990, he avoided\narrest and sentencing until 2009. If the 1990 case had proceeded\nat a more typical pace, this conviction would have been too old\nto enhance the criminal history calculation and resulted in a\ncriminal history category of III, which carries a recommended\nsentencing range of 70 to 87 months. Arturo was also convicted\nof two newly committed offenses: possession of a controlled\nsubstance and possession of an altered identification card.\nArturo committed the instant offense while on parole from his\n12–year sentence for the above convictions. Arturo also had\ntwo convictions that were too old to warrant additional\ncriminal history points.1\n The criminal history category of V, together with the\nadjusted offense level of 25 based on the quantity of heroin,\nresulted in an advisory sentencing range of 100-125 months\nimprisonment, with a statutory mandatory minimum sentence\nof 60 months. Arturo made no objection to the Guidelines\ncalculation.\n\n\n\n1\n In 1979, Arturo was convicted of distribution of heroin and was\nsentenced to five years’ probation. In 1985, he was sentenced to one year of\nprobation for resisting a peace officer.\n\f4 No. 18-1388\n\n Rather than argue the calculations were incorrect, Arturo\nargued a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months imprison-\nment was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserted the\ncriminal history calculation “over represented” his criminal\nhistory due to the time between the 1990 crime and his\nconviction. Arturo also argued that his co-defendants played\na larger role in the conspiracy and a lower sentence would\navoid a disparity between his sentence and Enemicio’s. Arturo\noffered his advanced age, poor health, and low likelihood of\nrecidivism as additional factors favoring a downward depar-\nture from the Guidelines range. Lastly, Arturo argued that he\nfaced harsh conditions in pre-trial detention due to his health\nand would face harsh conditions in prison because of his status\nas a deportable alien. This status, he asserted, prevented him\nfrom accessing Bureau of Prison programs and resources\nincluding the residential drug treatment program, which could\nreduce his term of imprisonment by one year.\n After Arturo’s argument, the court went over the factors it\nconsidered important in determining the sentence. The court\ncited the seriousness of trafficking a significant amount of\nheroin, the disastrous effects of the illicit drug trade on\ncommunities, and the fact that Arturo had been involved in\ndealing drugs for over 30 years. The court noted that he\nsquandered the opportunity to correct his behavior after\nreceiving only probation for his 1979 conviction and found it\ninappropriate to give him a below-Guidelines sentence\nconsidering his prior history and the fact that the instant\noffense was committed while he was on parole for his 2009\nconviction. The court considered the fact that Arturo came into\nthe conspiracy at a later stage than Enemicio but concluded\n\fNo. 18-1388 5\n\nthat his role was significant. The court discussed several of the\nmitigating factors emphasized by Arturo, including his\naddiction problems and his poor childhood.\n Taking all of this into account, the court imposed the lowest\npossible within-Guidelines sentence of 100-months imprison-\nment.\n II. ANALYSIS\n This court reviews de novo claims of procedural error at\nsentencing. United States v. Banks, 828 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.\n2016). Procedural error occurs when a court “fails to calculate\n(or improperly calculates) the Guidelines range, treats the\nGuidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors,\nselects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to\nadequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United States,\n552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court must also “consider a\ndefendant's principal, nonfrivolous arguments for lenience.”\nUnited States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684, 687 (7th Cir. 2013)\n(per curiam). In considering such arguments, the judge must\ndemonstrate that he “has considered the parties arguments and\nhas a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-\nmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356\n(2007).\n The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the\ndistrict court gave thorough consideration to the facts of this\ncase and to the defendant’s arguments. It discussed the\nseriousness of the offense and rejected Arturo’s attempt to\nminimize the role he played in the conspiracy. The court did so\ncorrectly. Arturo admitted in his plea agreement that he helped\nto arrange the meeting location for the drug deal, and partici-\n\f6 No. 18-1388\n\npated in determining the quantity and price of the drugs to be\nsold. Arturo then personally participated in the drug deal by\nmeeting with the UCO. Though he was not involved in the\nconspiracy from the outset, once he joined he was involved\ncompletely and played a critical role.\n The court also rejected Arturo’s argument that his past\ncriminal conduct was over-represented. There is no error in\nthe court’s rejection of Arturo’s argument that his avoidance\nof arrest and sentencing for nearly 20 years was mitigating.\nTo conclude otherwise would minimize Arturo’s conduct\nand reward his successful flight from justice. The court\nappropriately determined that Arturo’s criminal history\nenhanced the need to promote respect for the law and provide\ndeterrence. This history of criminal conduct explains the\ndisparity between Arturo’s sentence and his co-defendants.\nArturo’s more extensive criminal history warranted a longer\nsentence.\n While the court did not directly comment on Arturo’s\nhealth or status as a deportable alien in its discussion of the\n§ 3553(a) factors at the sentencing hearing, we do not require\ndistrict courts to treat sentencing factors as a checklist or to\nspell out their analyses of each factor. See, e.g., United States v.\nPanaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The\ndistrict court need not address each § 3553(a) factor in checklist\nfashion, explicitly articulating its conclusion for each factor;\nrather, the court must simply give an adequate statement of\nreasons, consistent with § 3553(a), for believing the sentence it\nselects is appropriate.”). It is enough that the record confirms\nthat the court has given meaningful consideration to the\n§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478, 480\n\fNo. 18-1388 7\n\n(7th Cir. 2005). Arturo has merely demonstrated through his\narguments and legal authority cited that the court could have\nexercised its discretion with a more lenient sentence.\n Arturo’s argument that recidivism rates for those over 60\nyears of age is “nearly zero percent” rings hollow in light of the\nfact that Arturo committed this third drug offense at the age\nof 62. The district court noted:\n It is tragic that [Arturo] is 62 years of age, and at\n this time in this life finds himself in this situa-\n tion with really nothing. But there is nothing I\n can do about the defendant’s own deliberate\n choice of lifestyle. He made these decisions that\n brought him here today, to continue to commit\n offenses, to continue to sell illegal drugs, to\n continue to violate the law even into his late\n years. I see no likelihood that this defendant’s\n age will in any way be a deterrent to further\n criminal conduct.\n And as to his health, Arturo presented no evidence that the\nBureau of Prisons would be unable to provide him with\nadequate healthcare.\n The district court rejected Arturo’s argument regarding his\ndeportable status implicitly, noting that the fact that Arturo\nwould be deported would make him unlikely to face addi-\ntional state charges after his release. The court also stated, after\ndiscussing the § 3553(a) factors, that Arturo would not be\nrequired to report to a probation office for supervised release\nnor would the conditions of his supervised release be applica-\nble if he is deported to Mexico. The court further declared that\n\f8 No. 18-1388\n\nArturo should be given an opportunity to participate in the\nresidential drug treatment program by the Bureau of Prisons\ndespite his immigration status.\n Arturo also argues that the 100-month sentence was\nsubstantively unreasonable. We presume that a within-\nGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States\nv. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Arturo bears the\nburden of overcoming that presumption of reasonableness.\nUnited States v. Cunningham, 883 F.3d 690, 701 (7th Cir. 2018).\nHe attempts to rebut that presumption by arguing his sentence\n“results in essentially a life sentence driven primarily by the\nAppellant’s over-represented criminal history despite the\nAppellant’s relatively minor role in the instant offense.” The\ndistrict court rejected the argument that Arturo’s criminal\nhistory was over-represented, and this court agrees. Arturo\nhas not shouldered his burden of showing the sentence was\nunreasonable, and failed to show that the district court did not\ngive meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Meaningful consideration was given to Arturo’s arguments\nin favor of mitigation, the 100-month within-Guidelines\nsentence was substantively reasonable, and the sentencing\norder is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo BUSTOS, Defendant-Appellant.\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-10\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-1388\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nARTURO BUSTOS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 CR 00668-4 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 10, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Arturo Bustos conspired with his co-\\ndefendants to deliver 995 grams of heroin to an undercover\\nofficer. Bustos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to\\ndistribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 100-\\nmonths imprisonment. Bustos now appeals his 100-month\\nsentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1388\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Arturo Bustos, Enemicio Bustos, Omar Landa, and Tomas\\nLanda conspired to sell heroin to an undercover officer\\n(“UCO”). Arturo and Enemicio engaged in multiple phone\\nconversations with the UCO, arranging a date, time, and\\nlocation to sell 995 grams of heroin for $180,000. On\\nOctober 12, 2016, Enemicio drove Arturo to the meet location.\\nArturo entered the UCO’s car and instructed him to drive to a\\nsecond location where he would receive the heroin. At the\\nsecond location, Omar entered the vehicle to verify that the\\nUCO brought the $180,000 in cash. With the cash verified,\\nTomas then arrived carrying a firearm and the 995 grams of\\nheroin.\\n The four men were charged with conspiracy to possess and\\ndistribute a mixture containing 100 grams or more of heroin on\\nOctober 12, 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846\\n(Count Two), and distribution of 100 or more grams of heroin\\nin violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (2) (Count Three).\\nEnemicio was additionally charged with violating 21 U.S.C.\\n§ 841(a)(1) for a previous heroin deal which took place on\\nSeptember 9, 2016 (Count One). Tomas was additionally\\ncharged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug\\ntrafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Four).\\nEnemicio, whose criminal history consisted of one prior\\nburglary charge, was sentenced to 65 months of imprisonment.\\nTomas received a 110-month sentence.\\n Arturo admitted that he agreed to distribute 995 grams of\\nheroin to the UCO and pleaded guilty to Count Two of the\\nindictment. He admitted that he and Enemicio engaged in\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 3\\n\\nphone conversations with the UCO to set up the transaction\\nand that he and Omar met with the UCO to verify he had the\\ncash necessary to buy the heroin.\\n At the sentencing hearing, the district court calculated\\nArturo’s criminal history category as V for the following\\nreasons. On September 24, 2009, Arturo was convicted of\\nmanufacturing and delivering cocaine. Although an arrest\\nwarrant was issued, and he was charged in 1990, he avoided\\narrest and sentencing until 2009. If the 1990 case had proceeded\\nat a more typical pace, this conviction would have been too old\\nto enhance the criminal history calculation and resulted in a\\ncriminal history category of III, which carries a recommended\\nsentencing range of 70 to 87 months. Arturo was also convicted\\nof two newly committed offenses: possession of a controlled\\nsubstance and possession of an altered identification card.\\nArturo committed the instant offense while on parole from his\\n12–year sentence for the above convictions. Arturo also had\\ntwo convictions that were too old to warrant additional\\ncriminal history points.1\\n The criminal history category of V, together with the\\nadjusted offense level of 25 based on the quantity of heroin,\\nresulted in an advisory sentencing range of 100-125 months\\nimprisonment, with a statutory mandatory minimum sentence\\nof 60 months. Arturo made no objection to the Guidelines\\ncalculation.\\n\\n\\n\\n1\\n In 1979, Arturo was convicted of distribution of heroin and was\\nsentenced to five years’ probation. In 1985, he was sentenced to one year of\\nprobation for resisting a peace officer.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1388\\n\\n Rather than argue the calculations were incorrect, Arturo\\nargued a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months imprison-\\nment was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserted the\\ncriminal history calculation “over represented” his criminal\\nhistory due to the time between the 1990 crime and his\\nconviction. Arturo also argued that his co-defendants played\\na larger role in the conspiracy and a lower sentence would\\navoid a disparity between his sentence and Enemicio’s. Arturo\\noffered his advanced age, poor health, and low likelihood of\\nrecidivism as additional factors favoring a downward depar-\\nture from the Guidelines range. Lastly, Arturo argued that he\\nfaced harsh conditions in pre-trial detention due to his health\\nand would face harsh conditions in prison because of his status\\nas a deportable alien. This status, he asserted, prevented him\\nfrom accessing Bureau of Prison programs and resources\\nincluding the residential drug treatment program, which could\\nreduce his term of imprisonment by one year.\\n After Arturo’s argument, the court went over the factors it\\nconsidered important in determining the sentence. The court\\ncited the seriousness of trafficking a significant amount of\\nheroin, the disastrous effects of the illicit drug trade on\\ncommunities, and the fact that Arturo had been involved in\\ndealing drugs for over 30 years. The court noted that he\\nsquandered the opportunity to correct his behavior after\\nreceiving only probation for his 1979 conviction and found it\\ninappropriate to give him a below-Guidelines sentence\\nconsidering his prior history and the fact that the instant\\noffense was committed while he was on parole for his 2009\\nconviction. The court considered the fact that Arturo came into\\nthe conspiracy at a later stage than Enemicio but concluded\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 5\\n\\nthat his role was significant. The court discussed several of the\\nmitigating factors emphasized by Arturo, including his\\naddiction problems and his poor childhood.\\n Taking all of this into account, the court imposed the lowest\\npossible within-Guidelines sentence of 100-months imprison-\\nment.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n This court reviews de novo claims of procedural error at\\nsentencing. United States v. Banks, 828 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.\\n2016). Procedural error occurs when a court “fails to calculate\\n(or improperly calculates) the Guidelines range, treats the\\nGuidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors,\\nselects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to\\nadequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court must also “consider a\\ndefendant's principal, nonfrivolous arguments for lenience.”\\nUnited States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684, 687 (7th Cir. 2013)\\n(per curiam). In considering such arguments, the judge must\\ndemonstrate that he “has considered the parties arguments and\\nhas a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-\\nmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356\\n(2007).\\n The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the\\ndistrict court gave thorough consideration to the facts of this\\ncase and to the defendant’s arguments. It discussed the\\nseriousness of the offense and rejected Arturo’s attempt to\\nminimize the role he played in the conspiracy. The court did so\\ncorrectly. Arturo admitted in his plea agreement that he helped\\nto arrange the meeting location for the drug deal, and partici-\\n\\f6 No. 18-1388\\n\\npated in determining the quantity and price of the drugs to be\\nsold. Arturo then personally participated in the drug deal by\\nmeeting with the UCO. Though he was not involved in the\\nconspiracy from the outset, once he joined he was involved\\ncompletely and played a critical role.\\n The court also rejected Arturo’s argument that his past\\ncriminal conduct was over-represented. There is no error in\\nthe court’s rejection of Arturo’s argument that his avoidance\\nof arrest and sentencing for nearly 20 years was mitigating.\\nTo conclude otherwise would minimize Arturo’s conduct\\nand reward his successful flight from justice. The court\\nappropriately determined that Arturo’s criminal history\\nenhanced the need to promote respect for the law and provide\\ndeterrence. This history of criminal conduct explains the\\ndisparity between Arturo’s sentence and his co-defendants.\\nArturo’s more extensive criminal history warranted a longer\\nsentence.\\n While the court did not directly comment on Arturo’s\\nhealth or status as a deportable alien in its discussion of the\\n§ 3553(a) factors at the sentencing hearing, we do not require\\ndistrict courts to treat sentencing factors as a checklist or to\\nspell out their analyses of each factor. See, e.g., United States v.\\nPanaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The\\ndistrict court need not address each § 3553(a) factor in checklist\\nfashion, explicitly articulating its conclusion for each factor;\\nrather, the court must simply give an adequate statement of\\nreasons, consistent with § 3553(a), for believing the sentence it\\nselects is appropriate.”). It is enough that the record confirms\\nthat the court has given meaningful consideration to the\\n§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478, 480\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 7\\n\\n(7th Cir. 2005). Arturo has merely demonstrated through his\\narguments and legal authority cited that the court could have\\nexercised its discretion with a more lenient sentence.\\n Arturo’s argument that recidivism rates for those over 60\\nyears of age is “nearly zero percent” rings hollow in light of the\\nfact that Arturo committed this third drug offense at the age\\nof 62. The district court noted:\\n It is tragic that [Arturo] is 62 years of age, and at\\n this time in this life finds himself in this situa-\\n tion with really nothing. But there is nothing I\\n can do about the defendant’s own deliberate\\n choice of lifestyle. He made these decisions that\\n brought him here today, to continue to commit\\n offenses, to continue to sell illegal drugs, to\\n continue to violate the law even into his late\\n years. I see no likelihood that this defendant’s\\n age will in any way be a deterrent to further\\n criminal conduct.\\n And as to his health, Arturo presented no evidence that the\\nBureau of Prisons would be unable to provide him with\\nadequate healthcare.\\n The district court rejected Arturo’s argument regarding his\\ndeportable status implicitly, noting that the fact that Arturo\\nwould be deported would make him unlikely to face addi-\\ntional state charges after his release. The court also stated, after\\ndiscussing the § 3553(a) factors, that Arturo would not be\\nrequired to report to a probation office for supervised release\\nnor would the conditions of his supervised release be applica-\\nble if he is deported to Mexico. The court further declared that\\n\\f8 No. 18-1388\\n\\nArturo should be given an opportunity to participate in the\\nresidential drug treatment program by the Bureau of Prisons\\ndespite his immigration status.\\n Arturo also argues that the 100-month sentence was\\nsubstantively unreasonable. We presume that a within-\\nGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States\\nv. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Arturo bears the\\nburden of overcoming that presumption of reasonableness.\\nUnited States v. Cunningham, 883 F.3d 690, 701 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nHe attempts to rebut that presumption by arguing his sentence\\n“results in essentially a life sentence driven primarily by the\\nAppellant’s over-represented criminal history despite the\\nAppellant’s relatively minor role in the instant offense.” The\\ndistrict court rejected the argument that Arturo’s criminal\\nhistory was over-represented, and this court agrees. Arturo\\nhas not shouldered his burden of showing the sentence was\\nunreasonable, and failed to show that the district court did not\\ngive meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Meaningful consideration was given to Arturo’s arguments\\nin favor of mitigation, the 100-month within-Guidelines\\nsentence was substantively reasonable, and the sentencing\\norder is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}},{"rowIdx":199,"cells":{"id":{"kind":"number","value":4580751,"string":"4,580,751"},"name":{"kind":"string","value":""},"name_abbreviation":{"kind":"string","value":"United States v. Arturo Bustos"},"decision_date":{"kind":"string","value":"2019-01-10"},"docket_number":{"kind":"string","value":"18-1388"},"court":{"kind":"string","value":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit"},"casebody":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"judges\": \"Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\", \"parties\": \"\", \"opinions\": [{\"author\": \"William Joseph Bauer\", \"type\": \"010combined\", \"text\": \"In the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-1388\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nARTURO BUSTOS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 CR 00668-4 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 10, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Arturo Bustos conspired with his co-\\ndefendants to deliver 995 grams of heroin to an undercover\\nofficer. Bustos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to\\ndistribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 100-\\nmonths imprisonment. Bustos now appeals his 100-month\\nsentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1388\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Arturo Bustos, Enemicio Bustos, Omar Landa, and Tomas\\nLanda conspired to sell heroin to an undercover officer\\n(“UCO”). Arturo and Enemicio engaged in multiple phone\\nconversations with the UCO, arranging a date, time, and\\nlocation to sell 995 grams of heroin for $180,000. On\\nOctober 12, 2016, Enemicio drove Arturo to the meet location.\\nArturo entered the UCO’s car and instructed him to drive to a\\nsecond location where he would receive the heroin. At the\\nsecond location, Omar entered the vehicle to verify that the\\nUCO brought the $180,000 in cash. With the cash verified,\\nTomas then arrived carrying a firearm and the 995 grams of\\nheroin.\\n The four men were charged with conspiracy to possess and\\ndistribute a mixture containing 100 grams or more of heroin on\\nOctober 12, 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846\\n(Count Two), and distribution of 100 or more grams of heroin\\nin violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (2) (Count Three).\\nEnemicio was additionally charged with violating 21 U.S.C.\\n§ 841(a)(1) for a previous heroin deal which took place on\\nSeptember 9, 2016 (Count One). Tomas was additionally\\ncharged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug\\ntrafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Four).\\nEnemicio, whose criminal history consisted of one prior\\nburglary charge, was sentenced to 65 months of imprisonment.\\nTomas received a 110-month sentence.\\n Arturo admitted that he agreed to distribute 995 grams of\\nheroin to the UCO and pleaded guilty to Count Two of the\\nindictment. He admitted that he and Enemicio engaged in\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 3\\n\\nphone conversations with the UCO to set up the transaction\\nand that he and Omar met with the UCO to verify he had the\\ncash necessary to buy the heroin.\\n At the sentencing hearing, the district court calculated\\nArturo’s criminal history category as V for the following\\nreasons. On September 24, 2009, Arturo was convicted of\\nmanufacturing and delivering cocaine. Although an arrest\\nwarrant was issued, and he was charged in 1990, he avoided\\narrest and sentencing until 2009. If the 1990 case had proceeded\\nat a more typical pace, this conviction would have been too old\\nto enhance the criminal history calculation and resulted in a\\ncriminal history category of III, which carries a recommended\\nsentencing range of 70 to 87 months. Arturo was also convicted\\nof two newly committed offenses: possession of a controlled\\nsubstance and possession of an altered identification card.\\nArturo committed the instant offense while on parole from his\\n12–year sentence for the above convictions. Arturo also had\\ntwo convictions that were too old to warrant additional\\ncriminal history points.1\\n The criminal history category of V, together with the\\nadjusted offense level of 25 based on the quantity of heroin,\\nresulted in an advisory sentencing range of 100-125 months\\nimprisonment, with a statutory mandatory minimum sentence\\nof 60 months. Arturo made no objection to the Guidelines\\ncalculation.\\n\\n\\n\\n1\\n In 1979, Arturo was convicted of distribution of heroin and was\\nsentenced to five years’ probation. In 1985, he was sentenced to one year of\\nprobation for resisting a peace officer.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1388\\n\\n Rather than argue the calculations were incorrect, Arturo\\nargued a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months imprison-\\nment was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserted the\\ncriminal history calculation “over represented” his criminal\\nhistory due to the time between the 1990 crime and his\\nconviction. Arturo also argued that his co-defendants played\\na larger role in the conspiracy and a lower sentence would\\navoid a disparity between his sentence and Enemicio’s. Arturo\\noffered his advanced age, poor health, and low likelihood of\\nrecidivism as additional factors favoring a downward depar-\\nture from the Guidelines range. Lastly, Arturo argued that he\\nfaced harsh conditions in pre-trial detention due to his health\\nand would face harsh conditions in prison because of his status\\nas a deportable alien. This status, he asserted, prevented him\\nfrom accessing Bureau of Prison programs and resources\\nincluding the residential drug treatment program, which could\\nreduce his term of imprisonment by one year.\\n After Arturo’s argument, the court went over the factors it\\nconsidered important in determining the sentence. The court\\ncited the seriousness of trafficking a significant amount of\\nheroin, the disastrous effects of the illicit drug trade on\\ncommunities, and the fact that Arturo had been involved in\\ndealing drugs for over 30 years. The court noted that he\\nsquandered the opportunity to correct his behavior after\\nreceiving only probation for his 1979 conviction and found it\\ninappropriate to give him a below-Guidelines sentence\\nconsidering his prior history and the fact that the instant\\noffense was committed while he was on parole for his 2009\\nconviction. The court considered the fact that Arturo came into\\nthe conspiracy at a later stage than Enemicio but concluded\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 5\\n\\nthat his role was significant. The court discussed several of the\\nmitigating factors emphasized by Arturo, including his\\naddiction problems and his poor childhood.\\n Taking all of this into account, the court imposed the lowest\\npossible within-Guidelines sentence of 100-months imprison-\\nment.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n This court reviews de novo claims of procedural error at\\nsentencing. United States v. Banks, 828 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.\\n2016). Procedural error occurs when a court “fails to calculate\\n(or improperly calculates) the Guidelines range, treats the\\nGuidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors,\\nselects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to\\nadequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court must also “consider a\\ndefendant's principal, nonfrivolous arguments for lenience.”\\nUnited States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684, 687 (7th Cir. 2013)\\n(per curiam). In considering such arguments, the judge must\\ndemonstrate that he “has considered the parties arguments and\\nhas a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-\\nmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356\\n(2007).\\n The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the\\ndistrict court gave thorough consideration to the facts of this\\ncase and to the defendant’s arguments. It discussed the\\nseriousness of the offense and rejected Arturo’s attempt to\\nminimize the role he played in the conspiracy. The court did so\\ncorrectly. Arturo admitted in his plea agreement that he helped\\nto arrange the meeting location for the drug deal, and partici-\\n\\f6 No. 18-1388\\n\\npated in determining the quantity and price of the drugs to be\\nsold. Arturo then personally participated in the drug deal by\\nmeeting with the UCO. Though he was not involved in the\\nconspiracy from the outset, once he joined he was involved\\ncompletely and played a critical role.\\n The court also rejected Arturo’s argument that his past\\ncriminal conduct was over-represented. There is no error in\\nthe court’s rejection of Arturo’s argument that his avoidance\\nof arrest and sentencing for nearly 20 years was mitigating.\\nTo conclude otherwise would minimize Arturo’s conduct\\nand reward his successful flight from justice. The court\\nappropriately determined that Arturo’s criminal history\\nenhanced the need to promote respect for the law and provide\\ndeterrence. This history of criminal conduct explains the\\ndisparity between Arturo’s sentence and his co-defendants.\\nArturo’s more extensive criminal history warranted a longer\\nsentence.\\n While the court did not directly comment on Arturo’s\\nhealth or status as a deportable alien in its discussion of the\\n§ 3553(a) factors at the sentencing hearing, we do not require\\ndistrict courts to treat sentencing factors as a checklist or to\\nspell out their analyses of each factor. See, e.g., United States v.\\nPanaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The\\ndistrict court need not address each § 3553(a) factor in checklist\\nfashion, explicitly articulating its conclusion for each factor;\\nrather, the court must simply give an adequate statement of\\nreasons, consistent with § 3553(a), for believing the sentence it\\nselects is appropriate.”). It is enough that the record confirms\\nthat the court has given meaningful consideration to the\\n§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478, 480\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 7\\n\\n(7th Cir. 2005). Arturo has merely demonstrated through his\\narguments and legal authority cited that the court could have\\nexercised its discretion with a more lenient sentence.\\n Arturo’s argument that recidivism rates for those over 60\\nyears of age is “nearly zero percent” rings hollow in light of the\\nfact that Arturo committed this third drug offense at the age\\nof 62. The district court noted:\\n It is tragic that [Arturo] is 62 years of age, and at\\n this time in this life finds himself in this situa-\\n tion with really nothing. But there is nothing I\\n can do about the defendant’s own deliberate\\n choice of lifestyle. He made these decisions that\\n brought him here today, to continue to commit\\n offenses, to continue to sell illegal drugs, to\\n continue to violate the law even into his late\\n years. I see no likelihood that this defendant’s\\n age will in any way be a deterrent to further\\n criminal conduct.\\n And as to his health, Arturo presented no evidence that the\\nBureau of Prisons would be unable to provide him with\\nadequate healthcare.\\n The district court rejected Arturo’s argument regarding his\\ndeportable status implicitly, noting that the fact that Arturo\\nwould be deported would make him unlikely to face addi-\\ntional state charges after his release. The court also stated, after\\ndiscussing the § 3553(a) factors, that Arturo would not be\\nrequired to report to a probation office for supervised release\\nnor would the conditions of his supervised release be applica-\\nble if he is deported to Mexico. The court further declared that\\n\\f8 No. 18-1388\\n\\nArturo should be given an opportunity to participate in the\\nresidential drug treatment program by the Bureau of Prisons\\ndespite his immigration status.\\n Arturo also argues that the 100-month sentence was\\nsubstantively unreasonable. We presume that a within-\\nGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States\\nv. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Arturo bears the\\nburden of overcoming that presumption of reasonableness.\\nUnited States v. Cunningham, 883 F.3d 690, 701 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nHe attempts to rebut that presumption by arguing his sentence\\n“results in essentially a life sentence driven primarily by the\\nAppellant’s over-represented criminal history despite the\\nAppellant’s relatively minor role in the instant offense.” The\\ndistrict court rejected the argument that Arturo’s criminal\\nhistory was over-represented, and this court agrees. Arturo\\nhas not shouldered his burden of showing the sentence was\\nunreasonable, and failed to show that the district court did not\\ngive meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Meaningful consideration was given to Arturo’s arguments\\nin favor of mitigation, the 100-month within-Guidelines\\nsentence was substantively reasonable, and the sentencing\\norder is AFFIRMED.\", \"resource_uri\": \"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/4358004/\", \"author_raw\": \"William Joseph Bauer\"}]}"},"judge1":{"kind":"string","value":"BAUER"},"judge2":{"kind":"string","value":"ROVNER"},"judge3":{"kind":"string","value":"ST EVE"},"exactly_three_caps":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"extra_judges":{"kind":"string","value":""},"judge_designations":{"kind":"string","value":"{\"BAUER\": \", Circuit\", \"ROVNER\": \", Circuit\", \"ST EVE\": \", Circuit\"}"},"opinions_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"majority_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"other_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"primary_citation":{"kind":"string","value":""},"reporter":{"kind":"string","value":""},"volume":{"kind":"null"},"resource_url":{"kind":"string","value":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580751/"},"precedential_status":{"kind":"string","value":"Published"},"010combined_count":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"020lead_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"030concurrence_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"035concurrenceinpart_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"040dissent_count":{"kind":"number","value":0,"string":"0"},"year":{"kind":"number","value":2019,"string":"2,019"},"month":{"kind":"number","value":1,"string":"1"},"messages":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\n\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\nobject that encodes the following variables:\n\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\n- Disposition of Case\n- Winning Party\n- Issue Area\n- Legal Provisions\n- Decision Direction\n- Lower Court Direction\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\n\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \"the Court\"** and assuming\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\n\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\n\n==================================================\n1. INPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou will receive input in two sections:\n\n[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\">\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\nOpinion type: <e.g. \"majority\", \"per curiam\", \"on-the-merits\", \"rehearing\", \"en banc\", etc.>\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\n\n[CASE_TEXT]\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\n[END_CASE]\n\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\n\n==================================================\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\n==================================================\n\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\n\n- \"petitioner\"\n- \"respondent\"\n- \"case_disposition\"\n- \"winning_party\"\n- \"issue_area\"\n- \"legal_provisions\"\n- \"decision_direction\"\n- \"lower_court_direction\"\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\"\n- \"method\"\n- \"who_appealed\"\n- \"dissent_basis\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\n- \"concurrence_type\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"concurrence_basis\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\n- \"justification\"\n\nSchema:\n\n- \"petitioner\": {\n \"name\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\n \"description\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"respondent\": {\n \"name\": string,\n \"description\": string, // e.g. \"United States as appellee\", \"private employer\", \"federal agency\"\n \"category\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\n \"category_label\": string // label for the category code\n }\n\n- \"case_disposition\": {\n \"code\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"winning_party\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"issue_area\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\n \"label\": string // short description of the main issue area\n }\n\n- \"issue_area_alt\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"legal_provisions\": [\n {\n \"area_code\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\n \"area_label\": string,\n \"provision_text\": string // e.g. \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\", \"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\"\n },\n ...\n ]\n\n- \"decision_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"lower_court_direction\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\n \"label\": string // \"no\" or \"yes\"\n }\n\n- \"method\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"who_appealed\": {\n \"code\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"dissent_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_type\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"code\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\n \"label\": string\n }\n\n- \"concurrence_basis\": { // ONLY include if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\" in metadata\n \"procedural\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n \"merits\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\n }\n\n- \"justification\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\n\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\n\n==================================================\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\n==================================================\n\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\n\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\n- The \"name\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\n- The \"description\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \"federal prisoner challenging sentence\",\n \"state official in civil-rights suit\", \"private corporation defendant\", \"federal agency\").\n\nFor each party, also assign a \"category\" code using this 7-category typology:\n\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\n\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\n\n\n3.2 Disposition of Case\n\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\n\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\n2 = reversed\n3 = reversed and remanded\n4 = vacated and remanded\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\n7 = vacated\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\n0 = no disposition\n\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\n or original authority (the word \"remand\" must appear in the opinion text).\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\"no disposition\").\n\n\n3.3 Winning Party\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\n\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\n- A \"favorable disposition\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\n regardless of the case disposition.\n\n\n3.4 Issue Area\n\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\n\n1 = Criminal Procedure\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\n\n2 = Civil Rights\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\n\n3 = First Amendment\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\n\n4 = Due Process\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\n\n5 = Privacy\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\n\n6 = Attorneys\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\n\n7 = Unions\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\n\n8 = Economic Activity\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\n\n9 = Judicial Power\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\n\n10 = Federalism\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\n\n11 = Interstate Relations\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\n\n12 = Federal Taxation\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\n\n13 = Miscellaneous\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\n\n14 = Private Action\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\n\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\n\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\n\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\n\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\n\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \"issue_area_alt\" with your\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\nset \"issue_area_alt\" to the same code and label as \"issue_area\".\n\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\n\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\n\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\n\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\n\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\n use 8.\n\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\n allegation.\n\n\n3.5 Legal Provisions\n\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \"legal_provisions\".\n\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\n\n1 = Constitution (original text)\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\n\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\n\n3 = Federal Statute\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\n\n4 = Court Rules\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\n (prejudicial evidence).\n\n5 = Other\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\n the categories above.\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\n of laches, implied contracts.\n\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\n\n8 = State or local law or regulation\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\n than federal law.\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\n\n9 = No Legal Provision\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\n citing specific legal authority.\n\nFor each entry:\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \"Constitution\", \"Federal Statute\").\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\",\n \"42 U.S.C. § 1983\", \"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\", \"state tort law\").\n\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\n\nDistinguishing area codes:\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\n\n\n3.6 Decision Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\nCRITICAL: The codes \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\n\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\n\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\n | with one of the patterns above |\n\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\nprinciples — use the table.\n\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\n\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\n\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\n\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\n says \"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\n\n\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\n\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\n row for code 1 says \"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\"\n\n\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\n\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\n\n Coding:\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\n lookup table row for code 8 says \"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\"\n\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \"pro-business\" outcome (e.g., it\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\n\n\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\n\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\n\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\n\n\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = conservative\n2 = liberal\n3 = unspecifiable\n\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\n\nUse this rule of thumb:\n\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \"affirmed\"\n or 8 \"petition denied or appeal dismissed\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \"reversed\",\n 3 \"reversed and remanded\", 4 \"vacated and remanded\", or 7 \"vacated\"), then the lower court's direction is the\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\n\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\n- \"SAME\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\n- \"OPPOSITE\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\n\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\n\nCodes:\n\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\n\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\n\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\nchallenged provision, code 0.\n\n\n3.9 Method\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\n\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\nstatements like \"before the court en banc,\" \"on rehearing,\" \"upon reconsideration,\" or\n\"per curiam.\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\n\n\n3.10 Who Appealed\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\n\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\nhistory. The \"original plaintiff\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \"original\ndefendant\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\n\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\n\n\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\" or \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\",\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\n\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\n\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\n\n\"dissent_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\n - \"merits\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\n\n\"concurrence_basis\" (include ONLY if \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\"):\n - \"procedural\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\n - \"merits\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\n\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\n(the longest or most substantive).\n\nIf the metadata says \"Has dissenting opinion: No\", OMIT \"dissent_basis\" entirely from your output.\nIf the metadata says \"Has concurring opinion: No\", OMIT \"concurrence_type\" and \"concurrence_basis\" entirely from your output.\n\n\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\n\nIf the case metadata states \"Has concurring opinion: Yes\", classify the concurrence as one of\nthe following types:\n\nCodes:\n\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\n\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\n like \"concurring in the result,\" \"concurring in the judgment,\" \"concurring in the result\n only,\" or \"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\n majority's analysis.\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\n\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\n the majority opinion or only the result.\n\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\nboth outcome and reasoning.\n\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\n\n\n==================================================\n4. GENERAL RULES\n==================================================\n\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \"unspecifiable\" or \"no disposition\" code\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\n directions in Section 3.6.\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\n- Include \"dissent_basis\", \"concurrence_type\", and \"concurrence_basis\" ONLY when the metadata\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\n\n\n==================================================\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\n==================================================\n\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\n","role":"system"},{"content":"[CASE_METADATA]\nCase name: United States v. Arturo Bustos\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\nDate decided: 2019-01-10\nOpinion type: majority\nHas dissenting opinion: No\nHas concurring opinion: No\nAdditional notes: \n\n[CASE_TEXT]\nIn the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-1388\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n v.\n\n\nARTURO BUSTOS,\n Defendant-Appellant.\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\n No. 16 CR 00668-4 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\n\n\n\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 10, 2019\n\n\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Arturo Bustos conspired with his co-\ndefendants to deliver 995 grams of heroin to an undercover\nofficer. Bustos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to\ndistribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 100-\nmonths imprisonment. Bustos now appeals his 100-month\nsentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\n\f2 No. 18-1388\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n Arturo Bustos, Enemicio Bustos, Omar Landa, and Tomas\nLanda conspired to sell heroin to an undercover officer\n(“UCO”). Arturo and Enemicio engaged in multiple phone\nconversations with the UCO, arranging a date, time, and\nlocation to sell 995 grams of heroin for $180,000. On\nOctober 12, 2016, Enemicio drove Arturo to the meet location.\nArturo entered the UCO’s car and instructed him to drive to a\nsecond location where he would receive the heroin. At the\nsecond location, Omar entered the vehicle to verify that the\nUCO brought the $180,000 in cash. With the cash verified,\nTomas then arrived carrying a firearm and the 995 grams of\nheroin.\n The four men were charged with conspiracy to possess and\ndistribute a mixture containing 100 grams or more of heroin on\nOctober 12, 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846\n(Count Two), and distribution of 100 or more grams of heroin\nin violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (2) (Count Three).\nEnemicio was additionally charged with violating 21 U.S.C.\n§ 841(a)(1) for a previous heroin deal which took place on\nSeptember 9, 2016 (Count One). Tomas was additionally\ncharged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug\ntrafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Four).\nEnemicio, whose criminal history consisted of one prior\nburglary charge, was sentenced to 65 months of imprisonment.\nTomas received a 110-month sentence.\n Arturo admitted that he agreed to distribute 995 grams of\nheroin to the UCO and pleaded guilty to Count Two of the\nindictment. He admitted that he and Enemicio engaged in\n\fNo. 18-1388 3\n\nphone conversations with the UCO to set up the transaction\nand that he and Omar met with the UCO to verify he had the\ncash necessary to buy the heroin.\n At the sentencing hearing, the district court calculated\nArturo’s criminal history category as V for the following\nreasons. On September 24, 2009, Arturo was convicted of\nmanufacturing and delivering cocaine. Although an arrest\nwarrant was issued, and he was charged in 1990, he avoided\narrest and sentencing until 2009. If the 1990 case had proceeded\nat a more typical pace, this conviction would have been too old\nto enhance the criminal history calculation and resulted in a\ncriminal history category of III, which carries a recommended\nsentencing range of 70 to 87 months. Arturo was also convicted\nof two newly committed offenses: possession of a controlled\nsubstance and possession of an altered identification card.\nArturo committed the instant offense while on parole from his\n12–year sentence for the above convictions. Arturo also had\ntwo convictions that were too old to warrant additional\ncriminal history points.1\n The criminal history category of V, together with the\nadjusted offense level of 25 based on the quantity of heroin,\nresulted in an advisory sentencing range of 100-125 months\nimprisonment, with a statutory mandatory minimum sentence\nof 60 months. Arturo made no objection to the Guidelines\ncalculation.\n\n\n\n1\n In 1979, Arturo was convicted of distribution of heroin and was\nsentenced to five years’ probation. In 1985, he was sentenced to one year of\nprobation for resisting a peace officer.\n\f4 No. 18-1388\n\n Rather than argue the calculations were incorrect, Arturo\nargued a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months imprison-\nment was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserted the\ncriminal history calculation “over represented” his criminal\nhistory due to the time between the 1990 crime and his\nconviction. Arturo also argued that his co-defendants played\na larger role in the conspiracy and a lower sentence would\navoid a disparity between his sentence and Enemicio’s. Arturo\noffered his advanced age, poor health, and low likelihood of\nrecidivism as additional factors favoring a downward depar-\nture from the Guidelines range. Lastly, Arturo argued that he\nfaced harsh conditions in pre-trial detention due to his health\nand would face harsh conditions in prison because of his status\nas a deportable alien. This status, he asserted, prevented him\nfrom accessing Bureau of Prison programs and resources\nincluding the residential drug treatment program, which could\nreduce his term of imprisonment by one year.\n After Arturo’s argument, the court went over the factors it\nconsidered important in determining the sentence. The court\ncited the seriousness of trafficking a significant amount of\nheroin, the disastrous effects of the illicit drug trade on\ncommunities, and the fact that Arturo had been involved in\ndealing drugs for over 30 years. The court noted that he\nsquandered the opportunity to correct his behavior after\nreceiving only probation for his 1979 conviction and found it\ninappropriate to give him a below-Guidelines sentence\nconsidering his prior history and the fact that the instant\noffense was committed while he was on parole for his 2009\nconviction. The court considered the fact that Arturo came into\nthe conspiracy at a later stage than Enemicio but concluded\n\fNo. 18-1388 5\n\nthat his role was significant. The court discussed several of the\nmitigating factors emphasized by Arturo, including his\naddiction problems and his poor childhood.\n Taking all of this into account, the court imposed the lowest\npossible within-Guidelines sentence of 100-months imprison-\nment.\n II. ANALYSIS\n This court reviews de novo claims of procedural error at\nsentencing. United States v. Banks, 828 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.\n2016). Procedural error occurs when a court “fails to calculate\n(or improperly calculates) the Guidelines range, treats the\nGuidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors,\nselects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to\nadequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United States,\n552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court must also “consider a\ndefendant's principal, nonfrivolous arguments for lenience.”\nUnited States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684, 687 (7th Cir. 2013)\n(per curiam). In considering such arguments, the judge must\ndemonstrate that he “has considered the parties arguments and\nhas a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-\nmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356\n(2007).\n The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the\ndistrict court gave thorough consideration to the facts of this\ncase and to the defendant’s arguments. It discussed the\nseriousness of the offense and rejected Arturo’s attempt to\nminimize the role he played in the conspiracy. The court did so\ncorrectly. Arturo admitted in his plea agreement that he helped\nto arrange the meeting location for the drug deal, and partici-\n\f6 No. 18-1388\n\npated in determining the quantity and price of the drugs to be\nsold. Arturo then personally participated in the drug deal by\nmeeting with the UCO. Though he was not involved in the\nconspiracy from the outset, once he joined he was involved\ncompletely and played a critical role.\n The court also rejected Arturo’s argument that his past\ncriminal conduct was over-represented. There is no error in\nthe court’s rejection of Arturo’s argument that his avoidance\nof arrest and sentencing for nearly 20 years was mitigating.\nTo conclude otherwise would minimize Arturo’s conduct\nand reward his successful flight from justice. The court\nappropriately determined that Arturo’s criminal history\nenhanced the need to promote respect for the law and provide\ndeterrence. This history of criminal conduct explains the\ndisparity between Arturo’s sentence and his co-defendants.\nArturo’s more extensive criminal history warranted a longer\nsentence.\n While the court did not directly comment on Arturo’s\nhealth or status as a deportable alien in its discussion of the\n§ 3553(a) factors at the sentencing hearing, we do not require\ndistrict courts to treat sentencing factors as a checklist or to\nspell out their analyses of each factor. See, e.g., United States v.\nPanaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The\ndistrict court need not address each § 3553(a) factor in checklist\nfashion, explicitly articulating its conclusion for each factor;\nrather, the court must simply give an adequate statement of\nreasons, consistent with § 3553(a), for believing the sentence it\nselects is appropriate.”). It is enough that the record confirms\nthat the court has given meaningful consideration to the\n§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478, 480\n\fNo. 18-1388 7\n\n(7th Cir. 2005). Arturo has merely demonstrated through his\narguments and legal authority cited that the court could have\nexercised its discretion with a more lenient sentence.\n Arturo’s argument that recidivism rates for those over 60\nyears of age is “nearly zero percent” rings hollow in light of the\nfact that Arturo committed this third drug offense at the age\nof 62. The district court noted:\n It is tragic that [Arturo] is 62 years of age, and at\n this time in this life finds himself in this situa-\n tion with really nothing. But there is nothing I\n can do about the defendant’s own deliberate\n choice of lifestyle. He made these decisions that\n brought him here today, to continue to commit\n offenses, to continue to sell illegal drugs, to\n continue to violate the law even into his late\n years. I see no likelihood that this defendant’s\n age will in any way be a deterrent to further\n criminal conduct.\n And as to his health, Arturo presented no evidence that the\nBureau of Prisons would be unable to provide him with\nadequate healthcare.\n The district court rejected Arturo’s argument regarding his\ndeportable status implicitly, noting that the fact that Arturo\nwould be deported would make him unlikely to face addi-\ntional state charges after his release. The court also stated, after\ndiscussing the § 3553(a) factors, that Arturo would not be\nrequired to report to a probation office for supervised release\nnor would the conditions of his supervised release be applica-\nble if he is deported to Mexico. The court further declared that\n\f8 No. 18-1388\n\nArturo should be given an opportunity to participate in the\nresidential drug treatment program by the Bureau of Prisons\ndespite his immigration status.\n Arturo also argues that the 100-month sentence was\nsubstantively unreasonable. We presume that a within-\nGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States\nv. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Arturo bears the\nburden of overcoming that presumption of reasonableness.\nUnited States v. Cunningham, 883 F.3d 690, 701 (7th Cir. 2018).\nHe attempts to rebut that presumption by arguing his sentence\n“results in essentially a life sentence driven primarily by the\nAppellant’s over-represented criminal history despite the\nAppellant’s relatively minor role in the instant offense.” The\ndistrict court rejected the argument that Arturo’s criminal\nhistory was over-represented, and this court agrees. Arturo\nhas not shouldered his burden of showing the sentence was\nunreasonable, and failed to show that the district court did not\ngive meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors.\n III. CONCLUSION\n Meaningful consideration was given to Arturo’s arguments\nin favor of mitigation, the 100-month within-Guidelines\nsentence was substantively reasonable, and the sentencing\norder is AFFIRMED.\n[END_CASE]","role":"user"}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the codebook below.\\n\\nYour task: Given metadata and text for a single federal appellate case, output a single JSON\\nobject that encodes the following variables:\\n\\n- Petitioner (name, description, and general category)\\n- Respondent (name, description, and general category)\\n- Disposition of Case\\n- Winning Party\\n- Issue Area\\n- Legal Provisions\\n- Decision Direction\\n- Lower Court Direction\\n- Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n- Method (panel, en banc, or rehearing)\\n- Who Appealed (original plaintiff vs. defendant)\\n- Dissent Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if dissent exists)\\n- Concurrence Type (regular vs. special/result-only — only if concurrence exists)\\n- Concurrence Basis (procedural vs. merits — only if concurrence exists)\\n\\nYou are working with U.S. Courts of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. Apply the SCDB coding\\nrules as closely as possible, treating the **Court of Appeals as \\\"the Court\\\"** and assuming\\nthat the **lower court is, e.g., a federal district court** whose decision is being reviewed.\\n\\nTo encode these variables, start by determining the petitioner and respondent, following the\\ninstructions in Section 3.1. Then, find the disposition of the case and code it according\\nto Section 3.2. Knowing the disposition will guide your next step: determining if the petitioner\\nwas the winning party, following the directions in Section 3.3. Next, use the overall opinion content\\nto code the issue area as described in Section 3.4. This step will also inform the legal provisions\\ncoding as laid out in Section 3.5. With the winning party, disposition, and issue area fixed,\\ncarefully and precisely follow the directions in Section 3.6 to assign a decision direction for the opinion.\\nBased on that decision direction and the disposition, you can assign a lower court direction as well,\\nfollowing Section 3.7. Finally, justify your decisions in the manner described below.\\n\\n==================================================\\n1. INPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou will receive input in two sections:\\n\\n[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: <case name as in the caption>\\nCourt: <name of the Court of Appeals, e.g. \\\"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit\\\">\\nDate decided: <YYYY-MM-DD or best approximation>\\nOpinion type: <e.g. \\\"majority\\\", \\\"per curiam\\\", \\\"on-the-merits\\\", \\\"rehearing\\\", \\\"en banc\\\", etc.>\\nHas dissenting opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate dissent>\\nHas concurring opinion: <Yes or No, based on whether the input data contains a separate concurrence>\\nAdditional notes: <any other metadata or summary, if provided>\\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\n<full or excerpted opinion text here>\\n[END_CASE]\\n\\nUse both metadata and text to code the variables. If metadata and text conflict, prefer the\\nsubstantive discussion in the opinion.\\n\\n==================================================\\n2. OUTPUT FORMAT\\n==================================================\\n\\nYou must output ONLY a single JSON object with exactly these keys:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\"\\n- \\\"respondent\\\"\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\"\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\"\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\"\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\"\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\"\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\"\\n- \\\"method\\\"\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\"\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\" (only if the case has a dissenting opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (only if the case has a concurring opinion)\\n- \\\"justification\\\"\\n\\nSchema:\\n\\n- \\\"petitioner\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string, // short party name from caption; usually the appellant\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // role and identity, e.g. \\\"federal criminal defendant appealing conviction\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"respondent\\\": {\\n \\\"name\\\": string,\\n \\\"description\\\": string, // e.g. \\\"United States as appellee\\\", \\\"private employer\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\"\\n \\\"category\\\": integer, // 1–7 general litigant type (see Section 3.1)\\n \\\"category_label\\\": string // label for the category code\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"case_disposition\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // must be one of the codes below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"winning_party\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0, 1, or 2 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14 from the list below\\n \\\"label\\\": string // short description of the main issue area\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"issue_area_alt\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–14; your best non-Misc alternative if issue_area.code == 13, else same as issue_area.code\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"legal_provisions\\\": [\\n {\\n \\\"area_code\\\": integer, // 1–9 (law area codes below)\\n \\\"area_label\\\": string,\\n \\\"provision_text\\\": string // e.g. \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\", \\\"18 U.S.C. § 924(c)\\\"\\n },\\n ...\\n ]\\n\\n- \\\"decision_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"lower_court_direction\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1, 2, or 3 as defined below\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"declaration_of_unconstitutionality\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 0 or 1 (see Section 3.8)\\n \\\"label\\\": string // \\\"no\\\" or \\\"yes\\\"\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"method\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.9)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"who_appealed\\\": {\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–4 (see Section 3.10)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"dissent_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_type\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"code\\\": integer, // 1–3 (see Section 3.12)\\n \\\"label\\\": string\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"concurrence_basis\\\": { // ONLY include if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\" in metadata\\n \\\"procedural\\\": integer, // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n \\\"merits\\\": integer // 0–3 (see Section 3.11)\\n }\\n\\n- \\\"justification\\\": string // 2–4 sentences summarizing why you chose these codes.\\n // You MUST explicitly say: (a) who won and why, (b) what issue_area.code is,\\n // (c) how that combination implied the decision_direction.code you chose, and\\n // (d) why the lower_court_direction is the same as or opposite to decision_direction.\\n\\nYour entire response must be exactly one JSON object in this schema and nothing else.\\n\\n==================================================\\n3. VARIABLE INTERPRETATION\\n==================================================\\n\\n3.1 Petitioner and Respondent\\n\\n- Use the case caption, opinion type, and text to determine who is appealing.\\n- Petitioner = the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals (typically the appellant).\\n- Respondent = the party opposing the appeal (typically the appellee).\\n- The \\\"name\\\" should be a reasonably short label from the caption.\\n- The \\\"description\\\" should describe their role and identity (e.g., \\\"federal prisoner challenging sentence\\\",\\n \\\"state official in civil-rights suit\\\", \\\"private corporation defendant\\\", \\\"federal agency\\\").\\n\\nFor each party, also assign a \\\"category\\\" code using this 7-category typology:\\n\\n1 = private business or corporation (including partnerships, sole proprietorships)\\n2 = nonprofit organization, interest group, or union (as an institutional party)\\n3 = federal government (including U.S. as party, federal agencies like DOJ, IRS, EPA, SEC, NLRB, etc.)\\n4 = sub-state government (city, county, municipality, school district, local official)\\n5 = state government (state, governor, state agency, state official in official capacity)\\n6 = tribal government or Indian nation\\n7 = natural person (individual, including pro se litigants and individual officials sued personally)\\n\\nChoose the category based on who the party IS, not what kind of case it is. When a government\\nofficial is sued in their official capacity, code them as the relevant government level (3, 4, or 5).\\nWhen sued in their personal/individual capacity, code them as 7 (natural person).\\n\\n\\n3.2 Disposition of Case\\n\\nCodes (Songer-style numbering):\\n\\n1 = affirmed (includes modified and affirmed)\\n2 = reversed\\n3 = reversed and remanded\\n4 = vacated and remanded\\n5 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part\\n6 = affirmed in part, reversed (or vacated) in part, and remanded\\n7 = vacated\\n8 = petition denied or appeal dismissed\\n9 = stay, petition, or motion granted\\n10 = certification to or from a lower court\\n11 = affirmed, vacated, and remanded (without reversal)\\n0 = no disposition\\n\\n- Use the text and opinion type (majority, rehearing, etc.) to identify what the Court of Appeals actually did.\\n- Only choose options 3, 4, or 6 if the opinion contains explicit instructions to remand the matter to the lower court\\n or original authority (the word \\\"remand\\\" must appear in the opinion text).\\n- For rehearing petitions, be explicit about whether the petition is granted (9), denied (8), or leads to modification\\n or vacatur (7) of the prior judgment.\\n- If the Court takes no substantive action on the merits (e.g., purely procedural opinion), use 0 (\\\"no disposition\\\").\\n\\n\\n3.3 Winning Party\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = no favorable disposition for petitioning party apparent\\n1 = petitioning party received a favorable disposition\\n2 = favorable disposition for petitioning party unclear\\n\\n- Treat the **petitioner** as the party seeking relief in the Court of Appeals.\\n- A \\\"favorable disposition\\\" is one that materially improves the petitioner's position relative to the lower court judgment\\n (e.g., reversal, vacatur, remand requiring relief, sentence reduction).\\n- For mixed outcomes (e.g., affirmed in part and reversed in part), assess whether, on balance, the petitioner is better off.\\n If clearly better off, use 1; if clearly not better off, use 0; if ambiguous, use 2.\\n- Note that an outcome favoring the petitioning party may be either an affirmation (if the lower court had ruled in favor of the petitioner)\\n OR a reversal (if the lower court had ruled against the petitioner). You should focus on whether the petitioner is better off,\\n regardless of the case disposition.\\n\\n\\n3.4 Issue Area\\n\\nChoose exactly one code and label from this list, based on the main legal/policy issue in the appeal:\\n\\n1 = Criminal Procedure\\n (e.g., search and seizure, arrest, interrogation, right to counsel, trial and sentencing rules, habeas)\\n\\n2 = Civil Rights\\n (e.g., equal protection, discrimination based on race or other protected traits, voting rights, school desegregation)\\n\\n3 = First Amendment\\n (e.g., freedom of speech, press, association, religion, and related expression claims)\\n\\n4 = Due Process\\n (e.g., non-criminal procedural fairness, property or liberty deprivations, economic regulation challenges framed as due process)\\n\\n5 = Privacy\\n (e.g., contraception, abortion, family relationships, intimate or sexual privacy, personal autonomy)\\n\\n6 = Attorneys\\n (e.g., attorney's fees, sanctions, bar admission and discipline, representation issues)\\n\\n7 = Unions\\n (e.g., labor relations, union membership and internal affairs, collective bargaining, union security)\\n\\n8 = Economic Activity\\n (e.g., antitrust, securities, regulation of business, commercial law, bankruptcy, financial regulation)\\n\\n9 = Judicial Power\\n (e.g., jurisdiction, standing, mootness, justiciability, sovereign immunity, standards of review, appellate procedure)\\n\\n10 = Federalism\\n (e.g., conflicts between federal and state authority, preemption, Tenth Amendment issues, state sovereign immunity vs federal power)\\n\\n11 = Interstate Relations\\n (e.g., disputes between states, boundary and water disputes, interstate compacts and obligations)\\n\\n12 = Federal Taxation\\n (e.g., federal income, corporate, estate, excise, and other federal tax issues)\\n\\n13 = Miscellaneous\\n (cases that genuinely do not fit any other issue area — see IMPORTANT note below)\\n\\n14 = Private Action\\n (e.g., private law disputes in property, contracts, torts, wills, estates, and similar matters)\\n\\nPick the **single best** issue area based on what the Court of Appeals treats as the central question.\\nIf multiple areas appear, choose the one most emphasized in the reasoning.\\n\\nIMPORTANT — AVOID MISCELLANEOUS (13):\\n\\nCode 13 should be used ONLY as a genuine last resort when NO other category applies even\\napproximately. Before choosing 13, reconsider the following common mappings:\\n\\n - Medical malpractice, products liability, personal injury, breach of contract,\\n admiralty, property disputes → 14 (Private Action)\\n - Workers' compensation (LHWCA, FELA, Longshore Act) → 7 (Unions) or 14 (Private Action)\\n - Bankruptcy, securities, antitrust, business regulation → 8 (Economic Activity)\\n - Social Security, disability, welfare benefits → 2 (Civil Rights)\\n - Attorneys' fees, bar discipline → 6 (Attorneys)\\n - Federal preemption of state law → 10 (Federalism)\\n - Procedural rehearing or jurisdictional questions → 9 (Judicial Power)\\n - Separation of powers, legislative veto → 13 (Miscellaneous) — this is a genuine use\\n\\nIf you DO choose issue_area.code = 13, you MUST also fill in \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" with your\\nbest-guess alternative code (the closest non-Misc category). If issue_area.code is not 13,\\nset \\\"issue_area_alt\\\" to the same code and label as \\\"issue_area\\\".\\n\\nISSUE AREA TIEBREAKING RULES:\\n\\nWhen a case implicates more than one issue area, apply these rules to select the primary one:\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Civil Rights (2): If the court's holding concerns criminal\\n conviction, sentencing, or procedure itself (e.g., suppression of evidence, habeas review of\\n a conviction), use 1 even if discrimination or civil-rights statutes are mentioned. Use 2\\n only when the holding primarily addresses whether discriminatory treatment occurred or whether\\n a civil-rights statute was violated.\\n\\n- Criminal Procedure (1) vs. Due Process (4): If the party is a criminal defendant raising\\n due-process claims about trial procedure, sentencing, or conditions of confinement, use 1.\\n Use 4 only when the due-process claim arises in a non-criminal context (e.g., government\\n termination of benefits, property seizure in a civil case).\\n\\n- Judicial Power (9) vs. any other area: Many cases discuss jurisdiction, standing, or\\n justiciability before reaching the merits. Use 9 ONLY when the court's holding is\\n primarily about whether it has the power to hear the case — i.e., the court resolves a\\n jurisdictional or justiciability question and that resolution IS the outcome. If the court\\n establishes jurisdiction and then rules on the merits, use the substantive merits area instead.\\n\\n- Economic Activity (8) vs. Federalism (10): If the holding is about whether a federal\\n statute preempts state regulation, use 10. If the holding is about the substance of a\\n federal regulatory scheme (e.g., upholding or striking down an EPA rule on the merits),\\n use 8.\\n\\n- Civil Rights (2) vs. Due Process (4): If the claim involves alleged discrimination under\\n equal protection or a civil-rights statute, use 2. Use 4 only when the claim is about\\n procedural fairness or property/liberty deprivation without an underlying discrimination\\n allegation.\\n\\n\\n3.5 Legal Provisions\\n\\nFor each major legal provision the Court of Appeals applies or interprets, add an entry to \\\"legal_provisions\\\".\\n\\nLaw Area codes (SCDB varLawArea):\\n\\n1 = Constitution (original text)\\n An Article or Section of the original Constitution (not an Amendment).\\n Examples: Article I (congressional power), Article II (executive power),\\n Article III (judicial power), Supremacy Clause, Commerce Clause, Full Faith\\n and Credit Clause, Contracts Clause.\\n\\n2 = Constitutional Amendment\\n Any Amendment to the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.\\n Examples: First Amendment (speech, religion), Fourth Amendment (search and\\n seizure), Fifth Amendment (due process, takings, self-incrimination), Sixth\\n Amendment (right to counsel, jury trial), Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual\\n punishment), Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process).\\n\\n3 = Federal Statute\\n A statute enacted by Congress, cited by title and section of the U.S. Code or\\n by its popular name. This is the most common category.\\n Examples: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil rights), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question\\n jurisdiction), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Sherman Act § 1 (antitrust),\\n 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (firearms), ERISA, CERCLA, ADA, FOIA, Sentencing Guidelines.\\n\\n4 = Court Rules\\n Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, or Appellate\\n Procedure, as well as local circuit rules.\\n Examples: Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), Fed. R. Civ. P.\\n 56 (summary judgment), Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (plea agreements), Fed. R. Evid. 403\\n (prejudicial evidence).\\n\\n5 = Other\\n Common law doctrines, equitable principles, or other legal authorities not fitting\\n the categories above.\\n Examples: common law fraud, maritime law (general), equitable estoppel, doctrine\\n of laches, implied contracts.\\n\\n6 = Infrequently litigated statutes\\n Federal statutes that appear rarely in appellate litigation and are not well-known\\n by popular name. Use this when the statute is obscure or highly specialized.\\n Examples: Railway Labor Act, Packers and Stockyards Act, Suits in Admiralty Act,\\n obscure provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.\\n\\n8 = State or local law or regulation\\n A state statute, state constitutional provision, local ordinance, or state/local\\n regulation. Use this when the court applies or interprets state or local law rather\\n than federal law.\\n Examples: state tort law, state contract law, state criminal statute, local zoning\\n ordinance, state environmental regulation.\\n\\n9 = No Legal Provision\\n The opinion does not meaningfully rely on any identifiable legal provision. Very\\n rare — use only when the court's analysis is purely factual or procedural without\\n citing specific legal authority.\\n\\nFor each entry:\\n- `area_code`: choose the single best area for the provision.\\n- `area_label`: the corresponding label (e.g., \\\"Constitution\\\", \\\"Federal Statute\\\").\\n- `provision_text`: identify the specific provision (e.g., \\\"Fourth Amendment, search and seizure\\\",\\n \\\"42 U.S.C. § 1983\\\", \\\"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)\\\", \\\"state tort law\\\").\\n\\nInclude the one to three provisions central to the court's analysis. If the opinion does not meaningfully\\nrely on any legal provision (very rare), use a single entry with area_code 9 and a brief explanation.\\n\\nDistinguishing area codes:\\n- If the court interprets the CONSTITUTION ITSELF (e.g., Commerce Clause), use 1.\\n- If the court interprets a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (e.g., Fourth Amendment), use 2.\\n- If the court interprets a FEDERAL STATUTE (the most common scenario), use 3.\\n- If the dispute is about a PROCEDURAL RULE (e.g., Rule 12(b)(6) motion), use 4.\\n- Use 8 for STATE LAW even if the case is in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.\\n- Use 5 for common law doctrines that are not codified in any statute or rule.\\n- Use 6 only for genuinely obscure federal statutes that would not be recognized by name.\\n\\n\\n3.6 Decision Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\n>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\\nCRITICAL: The codes \\\"conservative\\\" and \\\"liberal\\\" are MECHANICAL LABELS defined by the SCDB\\ncodebook. They are NOT your own assessment of political ideology. You MUST apply them exactly\\nas the lookup table below specifies, even when the result seems counterintuitive. For example,\\na decision favoring a taxpayer over the IRS is ALWAYS coded conservative (1) in a Federal\\nTaxation case, regardless of the policy context. A decision upholding a government regulation\\nis ALWAYS coded liberal (2) in an Economic Activity case, even if the regulation benefits\\nbusiness. Do NOT let your general understanding of politics override these rules.\\n<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<\\n\\nDIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE — apply mechanically based on issue_area.code and who benefits:\\n\\nissue_area.code | benefiting side | direction\\n----------------|------------------------------------------------------------|----------\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | accused / convicted person / criminal defendant | 2 (liberal)\\n1 (Crim. Pro.) | prosecution / law enforcement / government | 1 (conservative)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | civil rights or civil liberties claimant | 2 (liberal)\\n2 (Civ. Rts.) | government defendant / party opposing civil rights claim | 1 (conservative)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | person asserting First Amendment protections | 2 (liberal)\\n3 (1st Amend.) | government restricting speech, press, religion, etc. | 1 (conservative)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | individual challenging deprivation of liberty or property | 2 (liberal)\\n4 (Due Proc.) | government upholding deprivation | 1 (conservative)\\n5 (Privacy) | person asserting privacy / autonomy / reproductive choice | 2 (liberal)\\n5 (Privacy) | government restricting privacy or autonomy | 1 (conservative)\\n7 (Unions) | union / workers / collective bargaining interests | 2 (liberal)\\n7 (Unions) | employer / management / anti-union interests | 1 (conservative)\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | workers, consumers, injured parties, environment, govt | 2 (liberal)\\n | regulation, or small entities against large business |\\n8 (Econ. Act.) | employers, large business, property owners, deregulation | 1 (conservative)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | broader court access / standing / review | 2 (liberal)\\n9 (Jud. Power) | narrower court access / standing / review | 1 (conservative)\\n10 (Federalism) | federal authority over state authority | 2 (liberal)\\n10 (Federalism) | state sovereignty over federal power | 1 (conservative)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | United States / IRS / federal taxing authority | 2 (liberal)\\n12 (Fed. Tax.) | taxpayer | 1 (conservative)\\n11,14 | use 3 (unspecifiable) unless decision clearly aligns | 3 (unspecifiable)\\n | with one of the patterns above |\\n\\nPROCEDURE: You MUST FIRST determine who won the case (winning_party), THEN identify the\\nissue_area, and LAST look up the decision_direction from the table above by matching the\\nissue_area.code with the side that benefited. Do NOT reason about direction from first\\nprinciples — use the table.\\n\\nIf, after applying the table, you cannot determine which side benefited, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n\\n3.6.1 Worked Examples\\n\\nThe following three examples demonstrate correct mechanical application of the direction\\nlookup table, including cases where the SCDB coding may seem counterintuitive:\\n\\nEXAMPLE A — Federal Taxation (issue_area.code = 12)\\n\\n Facts: A taxpayer appeals an IRS assessment to the Court of Appeals. The court reverses the\\n Tax Court, holding that the taxpayer's deductions were proper and the assessment was incorrect.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 12 (Federal Taxation)\\n winning_party.code = 1 (petitioner/taxpayer received favorable disposition)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← taxpayer won; lookup table row for code 12\\n says \\\"taxpayer → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even though the taxpayer prevailed against the government, the SCDB mechanically\\n codes this as conservative (1) because the taxpayer benefited.\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE B — Criminal Procedure (issue_area.code = 1)\\n\\n Facts: A criminal defendant appeals his conviction, arguing that evidence was obtained\\n through an unlawful search. The Court of Appeals affirms, holding the search was lawful.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 1 (Criminal Procedure)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner)\\n decision_direction = 1 (conservative) ← prosecution/government benefited; lookup table\\n row for code 1 says \\\"prosecution → 1 (conservative)\\\"\\n\\n\\nEXAMPLE C — Economic Activity (issue_area.code = 8)\\n\\n Facts: A chemical company challenges an EPA water-quality regulation. The Court of Appeals\\n affirms, upholding the regulation as within the agency's statutory authority.\\n\\n Coding:\\n issue_area.code = 8 (Economic Activity)\\n winning_party.code = 0 (no favorable disposition for petitioner/company)\\n decision_direction = 2 (liberal) ← government regulation upheld against business;\\n lookup table row for code 8 says \\\"govt regulation → 2 (liberal)\\\"\\n\\n NOTE: Even if one might view upholding a regulation as a \\\"pro-business\\\" outcome (e.g., it\\n creates regulatory certainty), the SCDB mechanically codes government regulation prevailing\\n over a business challenge as liberal (2).\\n\\n\\n3.6.2 Internal Consistency Check\\n\\nBefore you output the JSON, you MUST run the following consistency check:\\n\\n1. Identify issue_area.code.\\n2. Identify which side won in the case (petitioner vs respondent) and what kind of party they are.\\n3. Look up the corresponding row in the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE above.\\n4. Verify that your decision_direction.code matches the table entry.\\n5. If it does not match, CORRECT decision_direction.code to match the table.\\n\\n\\n3.7 Lower Court Direction\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = conservative\\n2 = liberal\\n3 = unspecifiable\\n\\nUse the same DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE as for Decision Direction (see Section 3.6), but applied to\\nthe **lower court's outcome**. You MUST determine the lower court's direction by comparing the lower\\ncourt's judgment and the appellate court's disposition.\\n\\nUse this rule of thumb:\\n\\n1. First, identify the appellate disposition (case_disposition.code).\\n2. Next, identify the decision_direction.code for the Court of Appeals.\\n3. Last, infer who benefited in the lower court and assign lower_court_direction as follows:\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **leaves the lower court judgment in place** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 1 \\\"affirmed\\\"\\n or 8 \\\"petition denied or appeal dismissed\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- If the Court of Appeals clearly **undoes the lower court judgment** (e.g., case_disposition.code = 2 \\\"reversed\\\",\\n 3 \\\"reversed and remanded\\\", 4 \\\"vacated and remanded\\\", or 7 \\\"vacated\\\"), then the lower court's direction is the\\n OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n\\n- For mixed outcomes (case_disposition.code = 5 or 6), compare who won more in the lower court vs on appeal:\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is better off after the appeal than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the OPPOSITE of decision_direction.code.\\n * If, on balance, the petitioner is worse off or no better off than under the lower court judgment, then\\n the lower court's direction should usually be the SAME as decision_direction.code.\\n * If you cannot determine who benefited more from the lower court judgment even approximately, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\n- For stays, motions, certifications, or purely procedural dispositions (codes 9, 10, 0), infer who benefited in\\n the lower court if possible; if not, use 3 (unspecifiable).\\n\\nWhen you set lower_court_direction, remember:\\n- \\\"SAME\\\" means lower_court_direction.code = decision_direction.code.\\n- \\\"OPPOSITE\\\" means: if decision_direction.code = 1 (conservative), then lower_court_direction.code = 2 (liberal);\\n if decision_direction.code = 2 (liberal), then lower_court_direction.code = 1 (conservative).\\n\\n3.8 Declaration of Unconstitutionality\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n0 = the court did NOT strike down any statute, regulation, or government action as unconstitutional\\n1 = the court DID declare a statute, regulation, or government action unconstitutional\\n\\nCode 1 if the court holds that a law, regulation, executive action, or government practice violates\\nthe Constitution (whether facial or as-applied). This includes striking down acts of Congress, federal\\nregulations, state statutes, state constitutional provisions, and local ordinances.\\n\\nDo NOT code 1 merely because the court discusses constitutional issues. The court must actually\\nhold that something is unconstitutional. If the court upholds the constitutionality of the\\nchallenged provision, code 0.\\n\\n\\n3.9 Method\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = standard panel decision (typically 3 judges, first hearing)\\n2 = panel rehearing (same panel reconsidering its prior decision)\\n3 = en banc (full court or en banc panel rehearing a case)\\n4 = per curiam (unsigned opinion — may overlap with codes 1 or 3)\\n\\nUse the opinion text, metadata, and case caption to determine the method. Look for explicit\\nstatements like \\\"before the court en banc,\\\" \\\"on rehearing,\\\" \\\"upon reconsideration,\\\" or\\n\\\"per curiam.\\\" If the metadata indicates more than 3 judges participated, this strongly\\nsuggests en banc (code 3). If none of these indicators are present, use 1 (standard panel).\\n\\n\\n3.10 Who Appealed\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = original plaintiff (or the equivalent, e.g. the Title VII complainant, habeas petitioner)\\n2 = original defendant (or the equivalent, e.g. the employer in a Title VII suit)\\n3 = federal government on behalf of the original plaintiff\\n4 = federal government on behalf of the original defendant\\n\\nDetermine who initiated the appeal by examining the case caption, opinion text, and procedural\\nhistory. The \\\"original plaintiff\\\" is the party who filed suit in the lower court; the \\\"original\\ndefendant\\\" is the party who was sued. In criminal cases, the original plaintiff is typically the\\ngovernment (prosecution) and the original defendant is the accused.\\n\\nIf the opinion describes a cross-appeal, code based on who filed the PRIMARY appeal (the one\\nthe court addresses as the main appeal). If you cannot determine who appealed, use 1 as default\\nfor criminal defendants (who are most commonly appellants) or your best judgment from the caption\\nordering (appellant is typically listed first).\\n\\n\\n3.11 Dissent/Concurrence Basis (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\" or \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\",\\ncode whether that separate opinion addresses procedural issues, merits issues, or both.\\n\\nFor each dimension (procedural / merits), use one of these codes:\\n\\n0 = the dissent/concurrence exists but does NOT address this type of issue\\n1 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and DISAGREES with the majority's resolution\\n2 = addresses the SAME issue as the majority and AGREES with the majority's resolution\\n3 = addresses an issue NOT discussed by the majority opinion\\n\\n\\\"dissent_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has dissenting opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the dissent address procedural questions (jurisdiction, standing,\\n standard of review, procedural default, timeliness, etc.)?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the dissent address the substantive legal merits (statutory interpretation,\\n constitutional analysis, factual sufficiency, etc.)?\\n\\n\\\"concurrence_basis\\\" (include ONLY if \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\"):\\n - \\\"procedural\\\": Does the concurrence address procedural questions?\\n - \\\"merits\\\": Does the concurrence address the substantive legal merits?\\n\\nIf multiple dissenting or concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY one\\n(the longest or most substantive).\\n\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has dissenting opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"dissent_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\nIf the metadata says \\\"Has concurring opinion: No\\\", OMIT \\\"concurrence_type\\\" and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" entirely from your output.\\n\\n\\n3.12 Concurrence Type (Conditional)\\n\\nIf the case metadata states \\\"Has concurring opinion: Yes\\\", classify the concurrence as one of\\nthe following types:\\n\\nCodes:\\n\\n1 = regular concurrence — the concurring judge JOINED the majority opinion AND wrote or joined\\n a separate concurrence to add additional reasoning, emphasize a point, or note a limitation.\\n The key indicator: the judge agrees with BOTH the outcome AND the reasoning of the majority.\\n\\n2 = special concurrence / concurrence in result only — the concurring judge agrees with the\\n OUTCOME (disposition) but does NOT join the majority opinion's reasoning. Look for language\\n like \\\"concurring in the result,\\\" \\\"concurring in the judgment,\\\" \\\"concurring in the result\\n only,\\\" or \\\"I concur in the judgment but write separately because I disagree with the\\n majority's analysis.\\\" The key indicator: the judge explicitly declines to join the majority\\n opinion or distances themselves from the majority's reasoning.\\n\\n3 = cannot determine — the opinion text does not make clear whether the concurring judge joined\\n the majority opinion or only the result.\\n\\nThis distinction matters because special concurrences (code 2) signal reasoning disagreement\\nwithin a nominally unanimous disposition. A case where all judges agree on the outcome but one\\nwrites a special concurrence is qualitatively different from one where all judges agree on\\nboth outcome and reasoning.\\n\\nIf multiple concurring opinions exist, code based on the PRIMARY concurrence (the longest or\\nmost substantive). If one is a regular concurrence and another is a special concurrence,\\ncode based on the special concurrence (code 2), as it is more analytically informative.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n4. GENERAL RULES\\n==================================================\\n\\n- Use metadata (case name, court, date, opinion type) to:\\n - distinguish main merits opinions from rehearing or procedural opinions,\\n - interpret how the appellate disposition relates to the prior judgment,\\n - infer whether the case is criminal, civil rights, tax, etc.\\n- If some information is missing, use the appropriate \\\"unspecifiable\\\" or \\\"no disposition\\\" code\\n (e.g., 3 for direction, 11 for case_disposition); do not invent facts.\\n- Carefully follow the steps laid out in the introduction in order. In particular,\\n decide who won the case (winning_party). Then, decide what the issue_area is.\\n Only choose decision_direction once you have completed those steps, and follow the exact\\n directions in Section 3.6.\\n- In the justification, explicitly state who won, why (according to the disposition), and\\n how that winner and the issue_area code together implied the direction code you chose.\\n Reference the DIRECTION LOOKUP TABLE row you applied.\\n- ALWAYS choose exactly one code for each coded variable where required.\\n- NEVER output any keys other than the ones defined in the schema above.\\n- Include \\\"dissent_basis\\\", \\\"concurrence_type\\\", and \\\"concurrence_basis\\\" ONLY when the metadata\\n indicates the corresponding opinion type exists. Omit them entirely otherwise.\\n- NEVER output any numeric codes outside the permitted lists above.\\n\\n\\n==================================================\\n5. FINAL REQUIREMENT\\n==================================================\\n\\nAfter reading [CASE_METADATA] and [CASE_TEXT], respond ONLY with the JSON object in the schema\\nabove. Do not include any extra commentary, markdown, or explanation outside the JSON.\\n\",\n \"role\": \"system\"\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"[CASE_METADATA]\\nCase name: United States v. Arturo Bustos\\nCourt: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit\\nDate decided: 2019-01-10\\nOpinion type: majority\\nHas dissenting opinion: No\\nHas concurring opinion: No\\nAdditional notes: \\n\\n[CASE_TEXT]\\nIn the\\n\\n United States Court of Appeals\\n For the Seventh Circuit\\nNo. 18-1388\\n\\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\\n\\n v.\\n\\n\\nARTURO BUSTOS,\\n Defendant-Appellant.\\n\\n\\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the\\n Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.\\n No. 16 CR 00668-4 — Ronald A. Guzmán, Judge.\\n\\n\\n\\n ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2018 — DECIDED JANUARY 10, 2019\\n\\n\\n Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.\\n BAUER, Circuit Judge. Arturo Bustos conspired with his co-\\ndefendants to deliver 995 grams of heroin to an undercover\\nofficer. Bustos pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to\\ndistribute a controlled substance and was sentenced to 100-\\nmonths imprisonment. Bustos now appeals his 100-month\\nsentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\\n\\f2 No. 18-1388\\n\\n I. BACKGROUND\\n Arturo Bustos, Enemicio Bustos, Omar Landa, and Tomas\\nLanda conspired to sell heroin to an undercover officer\\n(“UCO”). Arturo and Enemicio engaged in multiple phone\\nconversations with the UCO, arranging a date, time, and\\nlocation to sell 995 grams of heroin for $180,000. On\\nOctober 12, 2016, Enemicio drove Arturo to the meet location.\\nArturo entered the UCO’s car and instructed him to drive to a\\nsecond location where he would receive the heroin. At the\\nsecond location, Omar entered the vehicle to verify that the\\nUCO brought the $180,000 in cash. With the cash verified,\\nTomas then arrived carrying a firearm and the 995 grams of\\nheroin.\\n The four men were charged with conspiracy to possess and\\ndistribute a mixture containing 100 grams or more of heroin on\\nOctober 12, 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846\\n(Count Two), and distribution of 100 or more grams of heroin\\nin violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (2) (Count Three).\\nEnemicio was additionally charged with violating 21 U.S.C.\\n§ 841(a)(1) for a previous heroin deal which took place on\\nSeptember 9, 2016 (Count One). Tomas was additionally\\ncharged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug\\ntrafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Four).\\nEnemicio, whose criminal history consisted of one prior\\nburglary charge, was sentenced to 65 months of imprisonment.\\nTomas received a 110-month sentence.\\n Arturo admitted that he agreed to distribute 995 grams of\\nheroin to the UCO and pleaded guilty to Count Two of the\\nindictment. He admitted that he and Enemicio engaged in\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 3\\n\\nphone conversations with the UCO to set up the transaction\\nand that he and Omar met with the UCO to verify he had the\\ncash necessary to buy the heroin.\\n At the sentencing hearing, the district court calculated\\nArturo’s criminal history category as V for the following\\nreasons. On September 24, 2009, Arturo was convicted of\\nmanufacturing and delivering cocaine. Although an arrest\\nwarrant was issued, and he was charged in 1990, he avoided\\narrest and sentencing until 2009. If the 1990 case had proceeded\\nat a more typical pace, this conviction would have been too old\\nto enhance the criminal history calculation and resulted in a\\ncriminal history category of III, which carries a recommended\\nsentencing range of 70 to 87 months. Arturo was also convicted\\nof two newly committed offenses: possession of a controlled\\nsubstance and possession of an altered identification card.\\nArturo committed the instant offense while on parole from his\\n12–year sentence for the above convictions. Arturo also had\\ntwo convictions that were too old to warrant additional\\ncriminal history points.1\\n The criminal history category of V, together with the\\nadjusted offense level of 25 based on the quantity of heroin,\\nresulted in an advisory sentencing range of 100-125 months\\nimprisonment, with a statutory mandatory minimum sentence\\nof 60 months. Arturo made no objection to the Guidelines\\ncalculation.\\n\\n\\n\\n1\\n In 1979, Arturo was convicted of distribution of heroin and was\\nsentenced to five years’ probation. In 1985, he was sentenced to one year of\\nprobation for resisting a peace officer.\\n\\f4 No. 18-1388\\n\\n Rather than argue the calculations were incorrect, Arturo\\nargued a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months imprison-\\nment was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He asserted the\\ncriminal history calculation “over represented” his criminal\\nhistory due to the time between the 1990 crime and his\\nconviction. Arturo also argued that his co-defendants played\\na larger role in the conspiracy and a lower sentence would\\navoid a disparity between his sentence and Enemicio’s. Arturo\\noffered his advanced age, poor health, and low likelihood of\\nrecidivism as additional factors favoring a downward depar-\\nture from the Guidelines range. Lastly, Arturo argued that he\\nfaced harsh conditions in pre-trial detention due to his health\\nand would face harsh conditions in prison because of his status\\nas a deportable alien. This status, he asserted, prevented him\\nfrom accessing Bureau of Prison programs and resources\\nincluding the residential drug treatment program, which could\\nreduce his term of imprisonment by one year.\\n After Arturo’s argument, the court went over the factors it\\nconsidered important in determining the sentence. The court\\ncited the seriousness of trafficking a significant amount of\\nheroin, the disastrous effects of the illicit drug trade on\\ncommunities, and the fact that Arturo had been involved in\\ndealing drugs for over 30 years. The court noted that he\\nsquandered the opportunity to correct his behavior after\\nreceiving only probation for his 1979 conviction and found it\\ninappropriate to give him a below-Guidelines sentence\\nconsidering his prior history and the fact that the instant\\noffense was committed while he was on parole for his 2009\\nconviction. The court considered the fact that Arturo came into\\nthe conspiracy at a later stage than Enemicio but concluded\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 5\\n\\nthat his role was significant. The court discussed several of the\\nmitigating factors emphasized by Arturo, including his\\naddiction problems and his poor childhood.\\n Taking all of this into account, the court imposed the lowest\\npossible within-Guidelines sentence of 100-months imprison-\\nment.\\n II. ANALYSIS\\n This court reviews de novo claims of procedural error at\\nsentencing. United States v. Banks, 828 F.3d 609, 618 (7th Cir.\\n2016). Procedural error occurs when a court “fails to calculate\\n(or improperly calculates) the Guidelines range, treats the\\nGuidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors,\\nselects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to\\nadequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United States,\\n552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The district court must also “consider a\\ndefendant's principal, nonfrivolous arguments for lenience.”\\nUnited States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684, 687 (7th Cir. 2013)\\n(per curiam). In considering such arguments, the judge must\\ndemonstrate that he “has considered the parties arguments and\\nhas a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision-\\nmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356\\n(2007).\\n The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the\\ndistrict court gave thorough consideration to the facts of this\\ncase and to the defendant’s arguments. It discussed the\\nseriousness of the offense and rejected Arturo’s attempt to\\nminimize the role he played in the conspiracy. The court did so\\ncorrectly. Arturo admitted in his plea agreement that he helped\\nto arrange the meeting location for the drug deal, and partici-\\n\\f6 No. 18-1388\\n\\npated in determining the quantity and price of the drugs to be\\nsold. Arturo then personally participated in the drug deal by\\nmeeting with the UCO. Though he was not involved in the\\nconspiracy from the outset, once he joined he was involved\\ncompletely and played a critical role.\\n The court also rejected Arturo’s argument that his past\\ncriminal conduct was over-represented. There is no error in\\nthe court’s rejection of Arturo’s argument that his avoidance\\nof arrest and sentencing for nearly 20 years was mitigating.\\nTo conclude otherwise would minimize Arturo’s conduct\\nand reward his successful flight from justice. The court\\nappropriately determined that Arturo’s criminal history\\nenhanced the need to promote respect for the law and provide\\ndeterrence. This history of criminal conduct explains the\\ndisparity between Arturo’s sentence and his co-defendants.\\nArturo’s more extensive criminal history warranted a longer\\nsentence.\\n While the court did not directly comment on Arturo’s\\nhealth or status as a deportable alien in its discussion of the\\n§ 3553(a) factors at the sentencing hearing, we do not require\\ndistrict courts to treat sentencing factors as a checklist or to\\nspell out their analyses of each factor. See, e.g., United States v.\\nPanaigua-Verdugo, 537 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The\\ndistrict court need not address each § 3553(a) factor in checklist\\nfashion, explicitly articulating its conclusion for each factor;\\nrather, the court must simply give an adequate statement of\\nreasons, consistent with § 3553(a), for believing the sentence it\\nselects is appropriate.”). It is enough that the record confirms\\nthat the court has given meaningful consideration to the\\n§ 3553(a) factors. United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 478, 480\\n\\fNo. 18-1388 7\\n\\n(7th Cir. 2005). Arturo has merely demonstrated through his\\narguments and legal authority cited that the court could have\\nexercised its discretion with a more lenient sentence.\\n Arturo’s argument that recidivism rates for those over 60\\nyears of age is “nearly zero percent” rings hollow in light of the\\nfact that Arturo committed this third drug offense at the age\\nof 62. The district court noted:\\n It is tragic that [Arturo] is 62 years of age, and at\\n this time in this life finds himself in this situa-\\n tion with really nothing. But there is nothing I\\n can do about the defendant’s own deliberate\\n choice of lifestyle. He made these decisions that\\n brought him here today, to continue to commit\\n offenses, to continue to sell illegal drugs, to\\n continue to violate the law even into his late\\n years. I see no likelihood that this defendant’s\\n age will in any way be a deterrent to further\\n criminal conduct.\\n And as to his health, Arturo presented no evidence that the\\nBureau of Prisons would be unable to provide him with\\nadequate healthcare.\\n The district court rejected Arturo’s argument regarding his\\ndeportable status implicitly, noting that the fact that Arturo\\nwould be deported would make him unlikely to face addi-\\ntional state charges after his release. The court also stated, after\\ndiscussing the § 3553(a) factors, that Arturo would not be\\nrequired to report to a probation office for supervised release\\nnor would the conditions of his supervised release be applica-\\nble if he is deported to Mexico. The court further declared that\\n\\f8 No. 18-1388\\n\\nArturo should be given an opportunity to participate in the\\nresidential drug treatment program by the Bureau of Prisons\\ndespite his immigration status.\\n Arturo also argues that the 100-month sentence was\\nsubstantively unreasonable. We presume that a within-\\nGuidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States\\nv. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Arturo bears the\\nburden of overcoming that presumption of reasonableness.\\nUnited States v. Cunningham, 883 F.3d 690, 701 (7th Cir. 2018).\\nHe attempts to rebut that presumption by arguing his sentence\\n“results in essentially a life sentence driven primarily by the\\nAppellant’s over-represented criminal history despite the\\nAppellant’s relatively minor role in the instant offense.” The\\ndistrict court rejected the argument that Arturo’s criminal\\nhistory was over-represented, and this court agrees. Arturo\\nhas not shouldered his burden of showing the sentence was\\nunreasonable, and failed to show that the district court did not\\ngive meaningful consideration to the § 3553(a) factors.\\n III. CONCLUSION\\n Meaningful consideration was given to Arturo’s arguments\\nin favor of mitigation, the 100-month within-Guidelines\\nsentence was substantively reasonable, and the sentencing\\norder is AFFIRMED.\\n[END_CASE]\",\n \"role\": \"user\"\n }\n]","isConversational":true}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":1,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":31175,"offset":100,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTc3NjU0MTYzMiwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2VpdGFucy1wdS9jbC1jb2RpbmctaW5wdXQiLCJleHAiOjE3NzY1NDUyMzIsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.N3ZZUubtV2sABZzGtKMjrnefiQZlMlEoHLXMBxTsSeg1xA46X2OS_D_r2eJw8V5_MAYXbPXJlUhnLRTJZ_kGBw","displayUrls":true,"splitSizeSummaries":[{"config":"default","split":"train","numRows":31175,"numBytesParquet":1629387251}]},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasGatedAccess":true,"hasFullAccess":true,"isEmbedded":false,"savedQueries":{"community":[],"user":[]}}">
id int64 | name string | name_abbreviation string | decision_date string | docket_number string | court string | casebody string | judge1 string | judge2 string | judge3 string | exactly_three_caps int64 | extra_judges string | judge_designations string | opinions_count int64 | majority_count int64 | dissent_count int64 | concurrence_count int64 | other_count int64 | primary_citation string | reporter string | volume null | resource_url string | precedential_status string | 010combined_count int64 | 020lead_count int64 | 030concurrence_count int64 | 035concurrenceinpart_count int64 | 040dissent_count int64 | year int64 | month int64 | messages list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4,584,977 | Charles Ray FINCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent Timothy MCKOY, Respondent-Appellee. | Charles Finch v. Timothy McKoy | 2019-01-25 | 17-6518 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Gregory, Keenan, Floyd", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Chief Judge Gregory authored the", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n ... | GREGORY | KEENAN | FLOYD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4584977/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,229 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Ismael AZUA-RINCONADA, Defendant - Appellant. | United States v. Ismael Azua-Rinconada | 2019-01-28 | 17-4344 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Niemeyer, Keenan, Moon, Western, Virginia", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No.... | NIEMEYER | KEENAN | MOON | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585229/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,234 | Charles Christopher WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellee, v. Bryan P. STIRLING, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Willie D. Davis, Warden of Kirkland Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellants, and Joseph McFadden, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent. Federal Republic of Germany, ... | Charles Williams v. Bryan Stirling | 2019-01-28 | 18-2 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Niemeyer, Agee, Diaz", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "AGEE, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 18-2\n\n\nCHARLES CHRISTOPHER... | NIEMEYER | AGEE | DIAZ | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585234/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,543 | Felipe Perez PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee Francis CISSNA, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant-Appellee. | Felipe Perez v. Lee Cissna | 2019-01-29 | 18-1330 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Wilkinson, King, Quattlebaum", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887943/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/... | WILKINSON | KING | QUATTLEBAUM | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585543/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,544 | David MCCLURE; Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. James PORTS; Earl Lewis ; Paul Comfort; Louis Jones ; Kevin Quinn, Defendants - Appellees. | David McClure v. James Ports | 2019-01-29 | 18-1065 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Motz, Agee, Richardson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 18-1065\n\n... | MOTZ | AGEE | RICHARDSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585544/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,586,413 | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MCLEOD HEALTH, INC., Defendant - Appellee. | Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. McLeod Health, Inc. | 2019-01-31 | 17-2335 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit | {"judges": "Gregory, Keenan, Floyd", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "FLOYD, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "PUBLISHED\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 17-2335\n\n\nEQUAL ... | GREGORY | KEENAN | FLOYD | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586413/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,385 | IRONSHORE EUROPE DAC, Plaintiff - Appellee v. SCHIFF HARDIN, L.L.P., Defendant - Appellant | Ironshore Europe DAC v. Schiff Hardin, L.L.P. | 2019-01-02 | 18-40101 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Davis, Costa, Oldham", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-40101 Document: 00514779217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH C... | DAVIS | COSTA | OLDHAM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578385/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,959 | Michael WEASE, Plaintiff - Appellant v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, L.L.C.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants - Appellees | Michael Wease v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., et | 2019-01-04 | 17-10574 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before KING, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10574 Document: 00514781652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n ... | KING | HAYNES | HIGGINSON | 1 | {"KING": ", Circuit", "HAYNES": ", Circuit", "HIGGINSON": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578959/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,825 | Maninder Singh GHOTRA v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting U.S. Attorney General | Ghotra v. Whitaker | 2019-01-04 | No. 17-60504 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Clement, Jones, Southwick", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415251/", "author_raw": ""}]} | CLEMENT | JONES | SOUTHWICK | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443825/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,826 | In the MATTER OF: BUCCANEER RESOURCES, L.L.C., Buccaneer Energy Limited, Buccaneer Energy Holdings, Incorporated, Buccaneer Alaska Operations, L.L.C., Buccaneer Alaska, L.L.C., Kenai Land Ventures, L.L.C., Buccaneer Alaska Drilling, L.L.C., Buccaneer Royalties, L.L.C., Kenai Drilling, L.L.C., Debtors Meridian Capital C... | Meridian Capital CIS Fund v. Burton (In re Buccaneer Res., L.L.C.) | 2019-01-04 | No. 18-40003 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Costa, Southwick, Wiener", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415252/", "author_raw": ""}]} | COSTA | SOUTHWICK | WIENER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443826/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,833 | MARIA S., AS NEXT FRIEND FOR E.H.F. S.H.F. and A.S.G., Minors v. Ramiro GARZA Ruben Garcia | Maria S. v. Garza | 2019-01-04 | No. 17-40873 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Jones, Smith", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415259/", "author_raw": ""}]} | HIGGINBOTHAM | JONES | SMITH | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443833/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,044 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael BAKER, Defendant - Appellant | United States v. Michael Baker | 2019-01-07 | 17-51034 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Wiener, Southwick, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WIENER, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-51034 Document: 00514784785 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | WIENER | SOUTHWICK | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580044/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,068 | SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ARCTURUS CORPORATION; Aschere Energy, L.L.C.; Leon Ali Parvizian, Also Known as Alex Parvizian; Robert J. Balunas; R. Thomas & Co., L.L.C.; Alfredo Gonzalez; AMG Energy, L.L.C., Defendants - Appellants | SEC. & Exch. Comm'n v. Arcturus Corp. | 2019-01-07 | 17-10503 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Stewart, Dennis, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10503 Document: 00514784815 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | STEWART | DENNIS | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580068/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,066 | SPRINGBOARDS TO EDUCATION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant - Appellee | Springboards to Educ., Inc. v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist. | 2019-01-08 | 18-20119 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Stewart, King, Owen", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KING, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20119 Document: 00514785922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | STEWART | KING | OWEN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580066/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,069 | Roger D. MAGEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walter P. REED, in His Official Capacity as District Attorney for Washington Parish; Walter P. Reed, in His Personal Capacity; Jerry Wayne Cox, Defendants-Appellees. | Roger Magee v. Walter Reed | 2019-01-08 | 17-30353 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Dennis, Per Curiam, Stewart, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-30353 Document: 00514786267 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | DENNIS | STEWART | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580069/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,071 | Leslie Latrice COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant - Appellee. | Leslie Coleman v. United States | 2019-01-08 | 17-51135 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Reavley, Elrod, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-51135 Document: 00514786869 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCU... | REAVLEY | ELROD | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580071/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,067 | SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOCAL 555, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellee | Sw. Airlines Co. v. Local 555, Transp. Workers Union of Am. AFL-CIO | 2019-01-09 | 18-10122 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Wiener, Southwick, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WIENER, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10122 Document: 00514788089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | WIENER | SOUTHWICK | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580067/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,075 | David Randle v. Crosby Tugs, L.L.C. | 2019-01-09 | 17-30963 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before KING, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-30963 Document: 00514784670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2019\n\n\n\n\n REVISED January 7, 2019\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF ... | KING | ELROD | HAYNES | 1 | {"KING": ", Circuit", "ELROD": ", Circuit", "HAYNES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580075/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,580,077 | VANTAGE HEALTH PLAN, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellee v. WILLIS-KNIGHTON MEDICAL CENTER, Doing Business as Willis-Knighton Health System, Defendant v. Humana Health Benefit Plan of Louisiana, Incorporated, Appellant | Vantage Health Plan, Inc. v. Willis-Knighton Med. Ctr. | 2019-01-09 | 17-30867 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jones, Barksdale, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-30867 Document: 00514787522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n... | JONES | BARKSDALE | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580077/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,844 | Ralph S. JANVEY, in his Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford International Bank Limited v. GMAG, L.L.C. Magness Securities, L.L.C. Gary D. Magness Mango Five Family Incorporated, in its Capacity as Trustee for the Gary D. Magness Irrevocable Trust | Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C. | 2019-01-09 | No. 17-11526 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Dennis, Stewart, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415270/", "author_raw": ""}]} | DENNIS | STEWART | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443844/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,585 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. David PIPER, Jr., Also Known as "D"; Carlos Cortinas, Defendants - Appellants | United States v. David Piper, Jr. | 2019-01-10 | 17-10913 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jolly, Dennis, Higginson", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10913 Document: 00514789146 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | JOLLY | DENNIS | HIGGINSON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580585/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,694 | Travis THOMAS, Plaintiff - Appellant v. Michael TREGRE, Chief Law Enforcement Officer, St. John the Baptist Parish, Defendant - Appellee | Travis Thomas v. Michael Tregre | 2019-01-10 | 18-30577 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jones, Haynes, Oldham", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HAYNES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30577 Document: 00514790449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n ... | JONES | HAYNES | OLDHAM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580694/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,581,025 | Petrina L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DALLAS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Defendant-Appellee. | Petrina Thompson v. Dallas City Attorney's Office | 2019-01-11 | 17-10952 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jolly, Elrod, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "DON R. WILLETT, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-10952 Document: 00514792392 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUI... | JOLLY | ELROD | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4581025/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,581,370 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ignacio ARELLANO-BANUELOS, Defendant - Appellant | United States v. Ignacio Arellano-Banuelos | 2019-01-14 | 17-11490 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Elrod, Higginson, Engelhardt", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-11490 Document: 00514794218 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH ... | ELROD | HIGGINSON | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4581370/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,581,374 | Maranda ODonnell v. Harris County, Texas, e | 2019-01-14 | 18-20466 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20466 Document: 00514794513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | SMITH | DUNCAN | SMITH | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "DUNCAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4581374/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,581,377 | Bruce M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Rogelio VALDEZ, in His Individual and Official Capacities, Defendant - Appellant | Bruce Anderson v. State of Texas | 2019-01-14 | 17-41243 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Graves, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-41243 Document: 00514794828 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/14/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FI... | HIGGINBOTHAM | GRAVES | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4581377/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,845 | Maranda Lynn ODONNELL v. Alex SALGADO Ronnisha Bowman Erica Hughes Shannon Baldwin David M. Fleischer Kelley Andrews Andrew A. Wright Franklin Bynum Toria J. Finch Lee Harper Wilson Sedrick T. Walker, II Cassandra Y. Holleman Raul Rodriguez Tonya Jones, Loetha Shanta McGruder Robert Ryan Ford v. Harris County, Texas, A... | Odonnell v. Salgado | 2019-01-14 | No. 18-20466 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Duncan, Smith", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415271/", "author_raw": "PER CURIAM"}]} | DUNCAN | SMITH | DUNCAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443845/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,582,029 | Jose Santos MEJIA, Also Known as Jose Santos Zavala-Mejia, Petitioner v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting U. S. Attorney General, Respondent | Jose Mejia v. Matthew Whitaker | 2019-01-16 | 16-60179 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "King, Dennis, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JAMES L. DENNIS, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 16-60179 Document: 00514797327 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH ... | KING | DENNIS | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4582029/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,582,032 | FREEDOM PATH, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff - Appellant v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; United States of America; Unknown Named Officials of the Internal Revenue Service, in Their Official and Personal Capacities as Employees, Defendants - Appellees | Freedom Path, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Serv. | 2019-01-16 | 18-10092 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Wiener, Southwick, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-10092 Document: 00514797754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\... | WIENER | SOUTHWICK | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4582032/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,582,235 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arturo SARLI, Also Known as Jose B. Sanchez, Also Known as Billy Sarli, Also Known as Arturo Sarly, Also Known as Armadillo Sarly, Defendant-Appellant | United States v. Arturo Sarli | 2019-01-16 | 17-50294 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "James, Haynes, Duncan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-50294 Document: 00514797899 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | JAMES | HAYNES | DUNCAN | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4582235/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,582,237 | RENEE J., AS Parent/Guardian/NEXT FRIEND OF C.J., a Minor Individual With a Disability; Cornelius J., as Parent/Guardian/Next Friend of C.J., a Minor Individual With a Disability, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee | Renee J. v. Houston Indep School District | 2019-01-16 | 17-20750 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jones, Clement, Southwick", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20750 Document: 00514798253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Unit... | JONES | CLEMENT | SOUTHWICK | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4582237/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
8,443,846 | David Tyler MOSS Brandon Keating v. Marko PRINCIP, Doing Business as Videogames YouTube Channel, Individually, Doing Business as Achievement Guide, Doing Business as Game Guide L.L.C. Bryan Martin | Moss v. Princip | 2019-01-16 | No. 16-10605 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Graves, Higginbotham, Jones", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415272/", "author_raw": ""}]} | GRAVES | HIGGINBOTHAM | JONES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443846/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,582,744 | In RE: ULTRA PETROLEUM CORPORATION; Keystone Gas Gathering, L.L.C.; Ultra Resources, Incorporated; Ultra Wyoming, Incorporated ; Ultra Wyoming LGS, Incorporated; UP Energy Corporation; UPL Pinedale, L.L.C. ; UPL Three Rivers Holdings, L.L.C., Debtors, Ultra Petroleum Corporation; Keystone Gas Gathering, L.L.C.; Ultra R... | Ultra Petroleum Corp. v. Ad Hoc Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Ultra Res., Inc. (In Re Ultra Petroleum Corp.) | 2019-01-17 | 17-20793 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Davis, Engelhardt, Oldham", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ANDREW S. OLDHAM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20793 Document: 00514799021 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ... | DAVIS | ENGELHARDT | OLDHAM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4582744/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,582,746 | PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GREATER TEXAS FAMILY PLANNING AND PREVENTATIVE HEALTH SERVICES, INC; Planned Parenthood San Antonio; Planned Parenthood Cameron County; Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc; Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center; Jane Doe #1; Jane Doe #2; Jane Doe #4; Jane Doe #7; Jane Doe #9; Jane Doe #10;... | Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Family Planning & Preventative Health Servs., Inc v. Smith | 2019-01-17 | 17-50282 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jolly, Jones, Haynes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887883/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/o... | JOLLY | JONES | HAYNES | 1 | {} | 6 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4582746/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,583,021 | JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, L.L.C., on Behalf of Its Patients, Physicians, and Staff, Doing Business as Hope Medical Group for Women; John Doe 1; John Doe 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Doctor Rebekah GEE, in Her Capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Defendant-Appellant. | June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. James Cald | 2019-01-18 | 17-30397 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Smith, Clement", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n No. 17-30397\n\n\n\nJUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, L.L.C.,\non Behalf of Its Patients... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | CLEMENT | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583021/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,583,120 | June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. James Cald | 2019-01-18 | 17-30397 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n United States Court of App... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | CLEMENT | 1 | {"HIGGINBOTHAM": ", Circuit", "SMITH": ", Circuit", "CLEMENT": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583120/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,584,567 | 84 LUMBER COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; Safeco Insurance Company of America; Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland; F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen & Associates, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees | 84 Lumber Company v. F.H. Paschen, S.N. Nielsen, e | 2019-01-24 | 18-30170 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Wiener, Southwick, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "WIENER, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30170 Document: 00514808466 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n ... | WIENER | SOUTHWICK | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4584567/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,584,855 | Travis Thomas v. Michael Tregre | 2019-01-25 | 18-30577 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before JONES, HAYNES, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "HAYNES, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30577 Document: 00514809432 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2019\n\n\n\n\n REVISED January 25, 2019\n\n IN THE UNITED S... | JONES | HAYNES | OLDHAM | 1 | {"JONES": ", Circuit", "HAYNES": ", Circuit", "OLDHAM": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4584855/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,584,999 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Jeffrey Louis FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellee | United States v. Jeffrey Freeman | 2019-01-25 | 17-40739 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Smith, Graves", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887929/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v... | HIGGINBOTHAM | SMITH | GRAVES | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4584999/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,212 | Rick Allen RHOADES, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee | Rick Rhoades v. Lorie Davis, Director | 2019-01-28 | 16-70021 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Haynes, Graves", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 16-70021 Document: 00514811300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFT... | HIGGINBOTHAM | HAYNES | GRAVES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585212/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,319 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. Oscar Virgilio PERDOMO, Defendant - Appellant | United States v. Oscar Perdomo | 2019-01-28 | 15-40958 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Jolly, Smith, Graves", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JAMES E. GRAVES, Jr., Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 15-40958 Document: 00514811566 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH ... | JOLLY | SMITH | GRAVES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585319/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,323 | Michael Joseph DEMARCO, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division ; Jeremy J. Bynum, Officer; Joseph C. Boyle, Disciplinary Captain, Defendants-Appellees. | Michael DeMarco, Jr. v. Lorie Davis, Director, et | 2019-01-28 | 17-11230 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Smith, Duncan, Engelhardt", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-11230 Document: 00514812117 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n ... | SMITH | DUNCAN | ENGELHARDT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585323/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,516 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Charles Devan FULTON, Sr., Also Known as Black, Also Known as Blacc, Defendant-Appellant | United States v. Charles Fulton, Sr. | 2019-01-29 | 17-41251 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Wiener, Southwick, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-41251 Document: 00514812957 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCU... | WIENER | SOUTHWICK | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585516/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,518 | Springboards to Education, Inc v. Houston ISD, et | 2019-01-29 | 18-20119 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before STEWART, Chief Judge, KING and OWEN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KING, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-20119 Document: 00514812956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2019\n\n\n\n\n REVISED January 29, 2019\n\n IN THE ... | STEWART | KING | OWEN | 1 | {"STEWART": ", Chief", "KING": ", Circuit", "OWEN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585518/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,586,033 | Rhonda F. LAMB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASHFORD PLACE APARTMENTS L.L.C.; Heather Bamburg; MRC Development, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees. | Rhonda Lamb v. Ashford Place Apartments LLC | 2019-01-30 | 18-30469 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HO, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30469 Document: 00514815793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FO... | SMITH | BARKSDALE | HO | 1 | {"SMITH": ", Circuit", "BARKSDALE": ", Circuit", "HO": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586033/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,586,035 | In RE: In the Matter of the Complaint of 4-K MARINE, L.L.C., as Owner of the M/V Miss Elizabeth, Petitioning for Exoneration From, or Limitation Of, Liability and Central Boat Rentals, Incorporated, as Operator of the M/V Miss Elizabeth, Petitioning for Exoneration From, or Limitation Of, Liability 4-K Marine, L.L.C., ... | 4-K Marine, L.L.C. v. Enter. Marine Servs., L.L.C. | 2019-01-30 | 18-30348 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Wiener, Southwick, Costa", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge:", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 18-30348 Document: 00514815449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT U... | WIENER | SOUTHWICK | COSTA | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586035/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,586,497 | Karen A. RITTINGER, Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant, v. HEALTHY ALLIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Doing Business as Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield; Anthem UM Services, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellants Cross-Appellees. | Karen Rittinger v. Healthy Alliance Life Ins Co. | 2019-01-31 | 17-20646 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | {"judges": "Higginbotham, Graves, Willett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "PER CURIAM", "type": "010combined", "text": "Case: 17-20646 Document: 00514817556 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2019\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT\n\n\n ... | HIGGINBOTHAM | GRAVES | WILLETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4586497/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,665 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Le'Ardrus BURRIS, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Le' Ardrus Burris | 2019-01-03 | 16-3855 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Batchelder, Thapar", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887817/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opi... | BATCHELDER | THAPAR | BATCHELDER | 1 | {} | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578665/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,666 | Patti Jo CAHOO and Kristen Mendyk, Individuals; Khadija Cole, an Individual and on Behalf of Similarly Situated ; Hyon Pak; Michelle Davison, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SAS ANALYTICS INC., Et Al., Defendants, Julie A. McMurtry (18-1295); Steven Geskey, Shemin Blundell, Dorris Mitchell, Debra Singleton, and Sharon Moffet-... | Patti Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc. | 2019-01-03 | 18-1295/1296 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Keith, Clay, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "CLAY, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0001p.06\n\n ... | KEITH | CLAY | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578666/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,962 | Shari GUERTIN, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Child, E.B., a Minor; Diogenes Muse-Cleveland, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STATE of Michigan, Et Al., Defendants, City of Flint, Michigan, Howard Croft, Darnell Earley, and Gerald Ambrose (17-1699) ; Liane Shekter-Smith, Daniel Wyant, Stephen Busch, Michael Prysby, and... | Shari Guertin v. State of Mich. | 2019-01-04 | 17-1769 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Griffin, McKeague", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887826/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "McKEAGUE", "type": "035concurrenceinpart", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/ap... | GRIFFIN | MCKEAGUE | GRIFFIN | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578962/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,003 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Blake MOOREHEAD, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Andrew Moorehead | 2019-01-09 | 18-5216 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cole, Griffin, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLE, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0004p.06\n\n ... | COLE | GRIFFIN | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580003/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,082 | United States v. Andrew Moorehead | 2019-01-09 | 18-5216 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: COLE, Chief Judge; GRIFFIN and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "COLE, Chief Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | COLE | GRIFFIN | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {"COLE": ", Chief", "GRIFFIN": ", Circuit", "KETHLEDGE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580082/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,580,591 | Lynn LUMBARD; Anita Yu; John Boyer ; Mary Raab, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF ANN ARBOR, Defendant-Appellee. | Lynn Lumbard v. City of Ann Arbor | 2019-01-10 | 18-1258 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Batchelder, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887842/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "030concurrence", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/... | BATCHELDER | KETHLEDGE | BATCHELDER | 1 | {} | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580591/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,890 | Lynn Lumbard v. City of Ann Arbor | 2019-01-10 | 18-1258 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: BATCHELDER, COOK, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ALICE BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n ... | BATCHELDER | COOK | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {"BATCHELDER": ", Circuit", "COOK": ", Circuit", "KETHLEDGE": ", Circuit"} | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580890/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,582,708 | TENNESSEE CLEAN WATER NETWORK ; Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant. | Tenn. Clean Water Network v. Tenn. Valley Auth. | 2019-01-17 | 17-6155 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0006p.06\n\n ... | SUHRHEINRICH | CLAY | GIBBONS | 1 | {"SUHRHEINRICH": ", Circuit", "CLAY": ", Circuit", "GIBBONS": ", Circuit"} | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4582708/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,583,043 | William G. BOLTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS, Defendant-Appellee. | Bolton v. Dep't of the Navy Bd. for Corr. of Naval Records | 2019-01-18 | 18-3284 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Cole, Suhrheinrich, Moore", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge.", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0007p.06\n\n ... | COLE | SUHRHEINRICH | MOORE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583043/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,583,535 | Paul MONEA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee. | Paul Monea v. United States | 2019-01-22 | 16-4250 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Keith, Clay, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0008p.06\n\n ... | KEITH | CLAY | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583535/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,583,708 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald BEDFORD, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Ronald Bedford | 2019-01-23 | 18-5627 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Daughtrey, Gibbons, Griffin", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0009p.06\n... | DAUGHTREY | GIBBONS | GRIFFIN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583708/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,583,709 | Julio Edgardo Molina HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. | Julio Molina Hernandez v. Matthew Whitaker | 2019-01-23 | 17-3977 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Suhrheinrich, Gibbons, Kethledge", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a... | SUHRHEINRICH | GIBBONS | KETHLEDGE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4583709/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,584,832 | DIMOND RIGGING COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BDP INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Logitrans International, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. | Dimond Rigging Co. v. BDP Int'l, Inc. | 2019-01-25 | 18-3615 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Boggs, Kethledge, Nalbandian", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BOGGS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0011p.06\n\n ... | BOGGS | KETHLEDGE | NALBANDIAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4584832/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,415 | Walid JAMMAL ; Kathleen Tuersley; Cinda J. Durachinsky; Nathan Garrett, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY; American Family Mutual Insurance Company; American Family Life Insurance Company; American Standard Insurance Company of Wisconsin; American Family Termination Benefits Plan; Retirement Pl... | Walid Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co. | 2019-01-29 | 17-4125 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Boggs, Clay", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887934/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/98879... | BOGGS | CLAY | BOGGS | 1 | {} | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585415/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,585,846 | Walid Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co. | 2019-01-29 | 17-4125 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BOGGS, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0012... | BOGGS | CLAY | ROGERS | 1 | {"BOGGS": ", Circuit", "CLAY": ", Circuit", "ROGERS": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585846/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,585,886 | Frieda AARON, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Maureen O'CONNOR and Mark R. Schweikert, in Their Official Capacities, Defendants-Appellees. | Frieda Aaron v. Maureen O'Connor | 2019-01-30 | 18-3452 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | {"judges": "Merritt, Guy, Moore", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION\n Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)\n File Name: 19a0013p.06\n\n ... | MERRITT | GUY | MOORE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4585886/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,281 | Eliseo BELTRAN-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Matthew G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. | Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker | 2019-01-02 | 18-1799 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Rovner, Hamilton, Barrett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1799\nELISEO BELTRAN-AGUILAR,\n ... | ROVNER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578281/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,297 | STATE of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee, Appeal Of: Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, Proposed Intervenor. | State of Illinois v. City of Chicago | 2019-01-02 | 18-2805 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Ripple, Kanne, Rovner", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2805\nSTATE OF ILLINOIS,\n ... | RIPPLE | KANNE | ROVNER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578297/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,299 | Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker | 2019-01-02 | 18-1799 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1799\nELISEO BELTRA... | ROVNER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {"ROVNER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578299/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,301 | Derrick D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel L. CONLEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley | 2019-01-02 | 17-2980 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Ripple, Barrett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Kenneth Francis Ripple", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-2980\nDERRICK D. NEELY-BEY TARIK-EL,\n ... | FLAUM | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578301/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,316 | State of Illinois v. City of Chicago | 2019-01-02 | 18-2805 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before RIPPLE, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Michael Stephen Kanne", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-2805\nSTATE OF ILLINOI... | RIPPLE | KANNE | ROVNER | 1 | {"RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578316/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,319 | Eliseo Beltran-Aguilar v. Matthew G. Whitaker | 2019-01-02 | 18-1799 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1799\nELISEO BELTRA... | ROVNER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {"ROVNER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578319/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,321 | Derrick Neely-Beytarik-El v. Daniel Conley | 2019-01-02 | 17-2980 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Kenneth Francis Ripple", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 17-2980\nDERRICK D. NEEL... | FLAUM | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578321/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,325 | United States v. Mandy L. Hagen | 2019-01-02 | 18-1579 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐1579 \nUNITED ST... | ROVNER | SYKES | BARRETT | 1 | {"ROVNER": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578325/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,326 | S. David GOLDBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael W. FRERICHS, Treasurer of Illinois, Defendant-Appellee. | S. David Goldberg v. Michael Frerichs | 2019-01-02 | 18-2432 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Easterbrook, Kanne, Rovner", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-2432\nS. DAVID GOLDBERG,\n ... | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | ROVNER | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578326/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,368 | United States v. Mandy L. Hagen | 2019-01-02 | 18-1579 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ROVNER, SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BARRETT, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 18‐1579 \nUNITED ST... | ROVNER | SYKES | BARRETT | 1 | {"ROVNER": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578368/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,369 | Sharon MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF ELGIN, Illinois, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Sharon Mitchell v. City of Elgin, Illinois | 2019-01-02 | 16-1907 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Kanne, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 16-1907\nSHARON MITCHELL,\n ... | KANNE | SYKES | KANNE | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578369/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,370 | S. David Goldberg v. Michael Frerichs | 2019-01-02 | 18-2432 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\n\nNo. 18-2432\nS. DAV... | EASTERBROOK | KANNE | ROVNER | 1 | {"EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "KANNE": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578370/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,403 | Sharon Mitchell v. City of Elgin, Illinois | 2019-01-02 | 16-1907 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE and SYKES, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Diane S. Sykes", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 16-1907\nSHARON MITCHELL,\n ... | KANNE | SYKES | KANNE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "SYKES": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578403/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,443,814 | United States v. Mandy L. HAGEN | United States v. Hagen | 2019-01-02 | No. 18-1579 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Barrett, Rovner, Sykes", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415240/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BARRETT | ROVNER | SYKES | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443814/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,578,667 | United States v. William Corrigan | 2019-01-03 | 17-3642 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17‐3642\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | BAUER | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578667/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,702 | United States v. William Corrigan | 2019-01-03 | 17-3642 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17‐3642\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | BAUER | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578702/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,578,768 | United States v. William Corrigan | 2019-01-03 | 17-3642 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, MANION, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17‐3642\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | BAUER | MANION | BRENNAN | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "MANION": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4578768/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,443,827 | United States v. William D. CORRIGAN | United States v. Corrigan | 2019-01-03 | No. 17-3642 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Brennan, Manion", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415253/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BAUER | BRENNAN | MANION | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443827/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,579,025 | Mohsin YAFAI and Zahoor Ahmed, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Mike POMPEO, Secretary of State, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Moshin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo | 2019-01-04 | 18-1205 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Flaum, Ripple, Barrett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/9887828/", "author_raw": ""}, {"author": "", "type": "040dissent", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opi... | FLAUM | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {} | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579025/ | Published | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,579,043 | Moshin Yafai v. Mike Pompeo | 2019-01-04 | 18-1205 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18‐1205 \nMOSHIN YAFAI and ZAHOOR AHMED, \n ... | FLAUM | RIPPLE | BARRETT | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "RIPPLE": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579043/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,579,282 | United States v. Marco Proano | 2019-01-07 | 17-3466 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3466 \nUNITED ST... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579282/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,579,287 | United States v. Marco Proano | 2019-01-07 | 17-3466 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3466 \nUNITED ST... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579287/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,579,288 | ORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Keith DAUBENSPECK, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Keith Daubenspeck | 2019-01-07 | 18-1815 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Wood, Easterbrook, Brennan", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-1815\nORGONE CAPITAL III, LLC, et al.,\n ... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | BRENNAN | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579288/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,579,305 | United States v. Marco Proano | 2019-01-07 | 17-3466 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3466 \nUNITED ST... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579305/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,579,306 | Orgone Capital III, LLC v. Keith Daubenspeck | 2019-01-07 | 18-1815 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "BRENNAN, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________\nNo. 18-... | WOOD | EASTERBROOK | BRENNAN | 1 | {"WOOD": ", Chief", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579306/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,579,307 | Johnnie Lee SAVORY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William CANNON, Sr., as Special Representative for Charles Cannon, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. | Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr. | 2019-01-07 | 17-3543 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Rovner, Hamilton, Barrett", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3543\n\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\n Plaintiff-Appellant,\n\n ... | ROVNER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579307/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,579,341 | Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr. | 2019-01-07 | 17-3543 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3543\n\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\n Plaintiff-Appella... | ROVNER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {"ROVNER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579341/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,579,372 | Johnnie Savory v. William Cannon, Sr. | 2019-01-07 | 17-3543 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 17-3543\n\nJOHNNIE LEE SAVORY,\n Plaintiff-Appella... | ROVNER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {"ROVNER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579372/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,579,731 | United States v. Marco Proano | 2019-01-07 | 17-3466 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before KANNE, HAMILTON, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "ST. EVE, Circuit Judge", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \nNo. 17‐3466 \nUNITED ST... | KANNE | HAMILTON | ST EVE | 1 | {"KANNE": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579731/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,443,828 | United States v. Marco PROANO | United States v. Proano | 2019-01-07 | No. 17-3466 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Eve, Hamilton, Kanne", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415254/", "author_raw": ""}]} | HAMILTON | KANNE | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443828/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,579,781 | David Lee v. Northeast Illinois Regional | 2019-01-08 | 18-1930 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, HAMILTON, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-1930\n\nDAVID LEE, et al.,\n ... | BAUER | HAMILTON | BARRETT | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "HAMILTON": ", Circuit", "BARRETT": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4579781/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,443,835 | David LEE v. NORTHEAST ILLINOIS REGIONAL COMMUTER RAILROAD CORPORATION | Lee v. Ne. Ill. Reg'l Commuter R.R. Corp. | 2019-01-08 | No. 18-1930 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Barrett, Bauer, Hamilton", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415261/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BARRETT | BAUER | HAMILTON | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443835/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,228 | Bankdirect Capital Finance v. Texas Capital Bank National | 2019-01-09 | 18-1054 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \n\nNo. 18‐1054 \nBA... | FLAUM | EASTERBROOK | BRENNAN | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580228/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,580,263 | Bankdirect Capital Finance v. Texas Capital Bank National | 2019-01-09 | 18-1054 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "Frank Hoover Easterbrook", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\n ____________________ \n\nNo. 18‐1054 \nBA... | FLAUM | EASTERBROOK | BRENNAN | 1 | {"FLAUM": ", Circuit", "EASTERBROOK": ", Circuit", "BRENNAN": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580263/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
8,443,836 | BANKDIRECT CAPITAL FINANCE, LLC, Counterdefendant-Appellant, and Texas Capital Bank, N.A., Counterdefendant-Appellant v. CAPITAL PREMIUM FINANCING, INC., Counterplaintiff-Appellee. | Bankdirect Capital Fin., LLC v. Capital Premium Fin., Inc. | 2019-01-09 | No. 18-1054 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Brennan, Easterbrook, Flaum", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "", "type": "020lead", "text": "", "resource_uri": "https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/opinions/8415262/", "author_raw": ""}]} | BRENNAN | EASTERBROOK | FLAUM | 1 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/8443836/ | Published | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | |||
4,580,663 | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arturo BUSTOS, Defendant-Appellant. | United States v. Arturo Bustos | 2019-01-10 | 18-1388 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Bauer, Rovner, Eve", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-1388\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n Plaintiff-Ap... | BAUER | ROVNER | 0 | {} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580663/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... | ||||
4,580,751 | United States v. Arturo Bustos | 2019-01-10 | 18-1388 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | {"judges": "Before BAUER, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.", "parties": "", "opinions": [{"author": "William Joseph Bauer", "type": "010combined", "text": "In the\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n For the Seventh Circuit\nNo. 18-1388\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n ... | BAUER | ROVNER | ST EVE | 1 | {"BAUER": ", Circuit", "ROVNER": ", Circuit", "ST EVE": ", Circuit"} | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | null | https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/4580751/ | Published | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2,019 | 1 | [
{
"content": "You are an expert legal coding assistant trained to classify U.S. federal Courts of Appeals\ncases using an adaptation of the Supreme Court Database (SCDB_2023_01) codebook. You follow the coding procedure\nin the codebook step by step and use the precise definitions of terms presented in the code... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.