CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

MICHAEL BIES,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
MARGARET BAGLEY, Warden,
Respondent-Appellant.


No. 06-3471

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 00-00682—Susan J. Dlott, District Judge.
Argued: October 31, 2007
Decided and Filed: February 27, 2008
Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Respondent Margaret Bagley, warden of the prison where Petitioner Michael Bies is incarcerated, appeals the order of the district court granting Petitioner a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, vacating his sentence of death, and ordering that he be resentenced to receive a sentence other than death. Respondent claims that, even though Petitioner was found to be mentally retarded on direct appeal, Ohio should be permitted to relitigate this finding now that it has taken on new legal significance in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). For the reasons which follow, we hold that Respondent’s claim is precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, and AFFIRM the decision of the district court granting habeas relief to Petitioner.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

FRANCISCO RAMIREZ-CANALES (05-4504); JOSE LUIS GARCIA CORREA (06-3990),
Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL MUKASEY,
Respondent.


Nos. 05-4504; 06-3990

On Appeal from the Board
of Immigration Appeals.
Nos. A78 145 159; A78 121 520.
Argued: October 23, 2007
Decided and Filed: February 27, 2008
Before: MARTIN, GIBBONS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Francisco Ramirez-Canales and Jose Luis Garcia Correa both appeal the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject their application for adjustment of status. Subsequent to oral argument before this panel, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a precedential interpretation of the statutes in question. We now defer to this interpretation and AFFIRM the Board’s decision denying the petitioners adjustment of status. However, we REMAND the case of Ramirez-Canales for consideration of equitable relief nunc pro tunc.