Cases

LAY, Circuit Judge. Gregory Joseph Halter (Halter) challenges the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the denial of his Motion for a New Trial and Motion to Alter or Amend. Because we find error in the district court’s characterization of dismissed charges as “more serious” than Halter’s charge under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), we vacate and remand for resentencing.

ORDER: (1) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION (DOC. 21); (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 28) & DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY BRIEF IN OPPOSITION (DOC. 42); AND (3) GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 24) TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.<

ROBERT MADDEN HILL, Circuit Judge: This appeal is before us on certified questions 1 which arise from the district court’s orders partially granting and partially denying two principal summary judgment motions. 2 More than forty employees of various ship-buil

403 F.Supp.2d 631 (2005) CITY OF CLEVELAND, Plaintiff, v. WOODHILL SUPPLY, INC., Arnold Kaufman, Michael Semlar, James Stallworth, Kenneth McNeil, and Norman Gore, Defendants. No. 1:04CV1590. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. August 18, 2005. *632 *633 Subodh Chandra,

289 B.R. 873 (2003) In re NATIONAL CENTURY FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., an Ohio Corporation, et al., Debtors. No. 02-65235. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. January 15, 2003. *874 Sam J. Alberts, Peter D. Isakoff, Jeannine R. Lesperance, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Holly E. Loiseau, Washington, DC, Thomas R. Allen,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge: Plaintiffs William W. Gilman and Edward J. McNenney, Jr. (together, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action on October 27, 2010. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 11, 2011, they filed their second amended complaint. (Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 23, (the “SAC”).) The SAC purports to state nine causes of action: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) abuse of

363 B.R. 591 (2007) In re Daniel Edward BROWN, and Shirley Ann Brown, Debtors. Thomas E. Boland, Plaintiff, v. Darcy M. Crum, Joseph V. Womack, Richard J. Samson, William M. Kebe, Jr., Ross P. Richardson, Gary S. Deschenes, Donald W. Torgenrud, Jr., Robert G. Drummond, Daniel Edward Brown, Shirley Ann Brown, James A Patten, Sharon R. Pruitt, Earl D. Pruitt, Laura J. Sandstrom, Clayton J. Arceneaux, Kenneth Johnson, Brandi L. Hazen, Gayle Ride

OPINION HILLMAN, District Judge. This matter has come before the Court on defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs employment discrimination claims. For the reasons expressed below, defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND In February 2008, plaintiff, Robert J. Dennis, was hired by the Atlantic County Justice

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge: Kane Enterprises (“Kane”), a commercial barge operator, appeals the dismissal, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), of its contract claims against MacGregor (USA), Inc., a naval contractor. Finding no error, we affirm. I. MacGregor contracted (the “prime contract”) with the United States Navy to build and i

(2008) In re KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS, INC., DERIVATIVE LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Actions. Case No. 1:06CV2171. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. March 21, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SARA LIOI, District Judge. This is a shareholders' derivative action. Before the Court are two motions to dismiss Plainti

MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting). For the reasons stated below I dissent from this Court’s decision to affirm without opinion the judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court granting the motion of the Secretary of State to dismiss this action. Hugh Mclnnish and Virgil H. Goode, Jr. (hereinafter “the plaintiffs”), appeal from an order of the Montgomery Circuit Court dismissing their complain

56 S.W.3d 527 (2001) ESTATE OF John E. ACUFF, Sr., et al. v. Brenda O'LINGER. Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville. April 11, 2001. Permission to Appeal Denied October 1, 2001. *528 John W. Cleveland, Sweetwater, TN; and Marshall A. Raines, Jr., Jasper, TN, for appellant, Brenda O'Linger. Bob E. Lype

BEAM, Circuit Judge. Austin W. Evans, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence on one count of extortion under color of official right in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (the Hobbs Act) and five counts of using the United States Mail to defraud the citizens of the State of Maryland of the intangible right to honest services in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346. We affirm t

745 F.Supp.2d 773 (2010) Melanie CLINE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF MANSFIELD, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:07-CV-1070. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. September 30, 2010. *783 Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Gerhardstein & Branch, Cincinnati, OH, David B. Malik, Chesterland, OH, Edwin J. Vargas, Cle

Opinion issued November 26, 2024 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-22-00827-CV ——————————— JASON ALEXANDER, JOE MCADAMS, ELIAS ABRAHAM, LAWRENCE ANDERSON, LISA ASTIN, JORGE ATENCIO, DAVID AYRE, DOUGLAS AUSTIN, JAMES BARCLIFT, MARTIN BENSON, MARIA BLACKWELL, T

OPINION OF THE COURT STAPLETON, Circuit Judge: We are called upon again to consider the standards governing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought in the aftermath of the suicide of a pretrial detainee. Sue Ann Col-burn alleges that Upper Darby Township (“Upper Darby”), its police department, and an individual police officer violated her daughter’s due process rights by failing to prevent her suicide. The d

This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 17 Wolfgang Doerr, Respondent, v. Daniel Goldsmith, Defendant, Julie Smith, Appellant. --------------------------- No. 66 Cheryl Dobinski, Appellant, v. George O. Lockhart, et al., Respondents. Case No. 17: Scott T. Horn, for appellant.

GARTH, Circuit Judge, dissenting: My disagreement with the majority is a fundamental one. We disagree on the level of intent required for a viable, due process based, § 1983 claim. The majority today, in disregard of Supreme Court instruction, has conclusorily asserted that allegations of gross negligence or deliberate indifference are sufficient to sustain a due process § 1983 claim. By using these terms interc

Moyer, C.J. The issue of first impression presented in this case is whether R.C. 4117.14(1), which mandates binding arbitration for collective bargaining disputes between the exclusive representatives of municipal safety forces and a municipal employer, is unconstitutional to the extent that it violates the city of Rocky River’s powers of local self-government and is an improper delegation of legislative power. For the reasons s

453 F.Supp. 203 (1978) STANDARD OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION and John F. O'Leary, Administrator, Federal Energy Administration, Defendants. SUN OIL COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION and John F. O'Leary, Administrator, Defendants. MOBIL OIL CO., Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL ENERGY ADMINISTRATION and John F. O'Leary, Administrator, Defendants. TEXACO, INC., Plaintif