Eugene E. Siler Jr.
How Judge Siler rules, drawn from 48 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Siler decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Reaches for a plain-English, everyday analogy rather than abstract doctrine to make a technical securities-law distinction concrete: here, explaining why a statement of present fact is not shielded by the PSLRA's forward-looking-statement safe harbor merely because it concerns a future event.
“Take for instance a man's statement to his friend, ‘My girlfriend has agreed to marry me.’ That is not a forward-looking statement. Rather, it is a backward-looking statement concerning a future event.”
He requires proof that a nonparty actually consented before enforcing a contract's forum-selection clause against it. In Ingram Barge, the consignee's benefit from delivery did not substitute for evidence that it agreed to the carrier's bill of lading.
“Typically, only parties to a contract are bound to its terms. This case is no exception. Zen-Noh Grain Corporation was neither a party to nor consented to Ingram Barge Company’s contract for the transportation of goods (a bill of lading) and thus is not bound to the contract’s forum selection clause.”
Procedural preferences
Rigorous, textualist two-step application of the Supreme Court's ACCA categorical/modified-categorical framework (Taylor, Descamps, Mathis, Sykes): first pin down the precise elements a defendant necessarily admitted, then compare only those elements to the federal definition, regardless of how sympathetic or unsympathetic the underlying conduct was. Applied consistently across a 2004-2019 span of ACCA sentencing appeals (Newton, Mitchell, Ball, Dawson, Eason).
“Congress did not attach a mens rea requirement to manufacturing. And it is clear that Congress could have done so, since it did for convictions involving possession of a controlled substance.”
Holds petitioners and plaintiffs strictly to procedural burdens and deadlines even where the underlying failure was arguably outside their control (a lost Express Mail delivery; postal delays generally): procedural default is not excused by hardship alone absent a showing of the specific 'extraordinary circumstances' or evidentiary rebuttal the rule requires.
“[N]either the Postal Service's provision of incorrect information nor its failure to deliver the notice on time constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that would justify intervention by this court into the Board's exercise of discretion.”
A party seeking judicial review of an arbitration clause must challenge the delegation provision itself, not simply repeat an attack on the broader arbitration agreement. When the two arguments are substantively identical, he leaves enforceability for the arbitrator.
“Indeed, Becker does not even separate his analysis of the enforceability of the delegation provision from his analysis of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement as a whole. Thus, under StockX, Becker’s challenge is not ‘specific’ to the delegation provision.”
He enforces the Speedy Trial Act's timing requirements as prospective obligations. A court cannot use later events to supply after-the-fact findings for an ends-of-justice continuance that had already begun.
“Because the district court’s ends-of-justice findings could not have been made before the continuance began, they were improper.”
A colorable claim of outside influence on a juror requires investigation even when the defendant has not yet proved that an unauthorized communication occurred. In Harris, the refusal to permit any inquiry required a remand for a hearing.
“Although Harris did not establish that Juror 12 was exposed to unauthorized communication, Harris did present a colorable claim of extraneous influence, which necessitated investigation.”
Cautions
Affirms denials of qualified immunity to police officers at the pleading and summary-judgment stages when the complaint or record, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, plausibly shows a clearly established Fourth Amendment violation. Two panels reached that result on distinct fact patterns involving a mistaken-address nighttime raid and a fatal shooting during flight.
“Because we find that the complaint states a plausible claim that the officers violated the plaintiffs' clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by executing a search warrant on their home in an unreasonable manner, we AFFIRM the district court's decision.”
A statutory notice violation does not automatically invalidate agency action; he asks whether the defect substantially prejudiced the affected party. In General Medicine, the lack of advance audit notice was harmless because the provider had fully litigated the audit issues and additional records would not have changed the result.
“Therefore, we hold that a court may excuse a CMS contractor’s failure to give notice of an audit under 42 U.S.C. § 1395ddd(f)(7)(A) if, and only if, the provider is not substantially prejudiced by the lack of notice.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“We affirm the district court's determination that Michigan's crime of third-degree home invasion is categorically equivalent to generic burglary. ... AFFIRMED.”
“we REVERSE Harris's conviction on Count 5, obstruction of justice, and REMAND ... We VACATE the judgment of the district court denying Harris's request to ... hold a Remmer hearing and REMAND for a Remmer hearing. We AFFIRM Harris's convictions on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 ...”
“Because we lack jurisdiction, we DISMISS Reid's appeal. ... Appeal DISMISSED.”
“We hold today that our July 13, 2016 order instructing the district court to vacate its preliminary injunction in Miller did not render this damages-only action moot. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court's judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
“We agree with the district court that Dr. Dargie's repayment to UT in 2002 was a personal expense and, therefore, not deductible under I.R.C. 162. ... AFFIRMED.”
“In each case, the district court disagreed, finding the penalties to be nondischargeable. We affirm the decisions below because the penalties are nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).”
“The district court granted summary judgment for both First Advantage and Elder Living, holding that the FCRA's two-year statute of limitations barred Rocheleau's lawsuit. We AFFIRM.”
“Because the MSPA does not provide Osborne a cause of action, the district court's decision is AFFIRMED.”
“Because we find that the complaint states a plausible claim that the officers violated the plaintiffs' clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by executing a search warrant on their home in an unreasonable manner, we AFFIRM the district court's decision.”
“Since these convictions are serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), we REVERSE Eason's sentence and REMAND for resentencing.”
“Because Plaintiffs adequately alleged scienter, we REVERSE and REMAND.”
Draft for Judge Siler with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Siler, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Siler's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace