CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DESHAUN ODENEAL (06-5885), SHANE ANDRES (06-5915),
Defendants-Appellants.


Nos. 06-5885/5915

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 05-00036—Charles R. Simpson III, District Judge.
Argued: September 13, 2007
Decided and Filed: February 22, 2008
Before: MARTIN, GUY, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GUY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, except as to the issue discussed in Section II.A.2. CLAY, J. (pp. 9-12), delivered a separate opinion on that issue, in which MARTIN, J., joined.

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Defendants Deshaun Odeneal and Shane Andres appeal from their convictions and sentences for participating in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana, heroin, and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and for possessing firearms in furtherance of their drug trafficking crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Defendants raised a number of claims on appeal, some of which need not be decided given the determination by Judge Clay, joined by Judge Martin, that the defendants established a Batson violation. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1976). Accordingly, this lead opinion represents the decision of the court with respect to Sections II.A.1., II.B.1. and II.B.2., and, for the reasons stated in the separate opinion by Judge Clay, the defendants’ convictions are reversed and the cases are remanded for new trial.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

ANTOINE D. WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TERRY J. COLLINS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.


No. 07-3428

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 04-00918—Norah McCann King, Magistrate Judge.
Argued: January 31, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 22, 2008
Before: DAUGHTREY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; GWIN, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant, a prisoner in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, challenges the constitutionality of Ohio’s DNA Act, which requires the collection of DNA specimens from convicted felons. Below, plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, contending that the Act is violative of his Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, due process and equal protection rights. The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. Finding the district court’s opinion to be well-reasoned and consistent with the growing body of case law on such challenges to DNA statutes, we affirm.