CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

MICHAEL J. ARENDALE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MEMPHIS,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 07-5230

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 05-02190—J. Daniel Breen, District Judge.
Argued and Submitted: January 29, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 20, 2008
Before: SILER, CLAY, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Michael Arendale is a white police officer employed by the Memphis Police Department. He appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant City of Memphis (“The City”) in this civil rights suit brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq. For the reasons that follow, the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the City is AFFIRMED.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSE EDUARDO URRIETA,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 07-5431

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 06-00154—Todd J. Campbell, Chief District Judge.
Argued: January 30, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 20, 2008
Before: GUY, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Jose Eduardo Urrieta appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. During a routine traffic stop, Deputy Sheriff Lee Young detained Urrieta beyond the time reasonably necessary to issue a citation, primarily because the officer mistakenly believed that Urrieta was not allowed to drive in Tennessee with a Mexican driver’s license. Deputy Young claims that, during the course of the traffic stop, he became suspicious that Urrieta was transporting drugs. Eventually Urrieta gave Deputy Young written consent to search his vehicle. The deputy discovered no drugs, but found three handguns and several fraudulent identification cards. Finding that Deputy Young had a reasonable suspicion to extend the detention and that Urrieta’s consent was voluntary, the district court denied Urrieta’s motion to suppress. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

MUHAMMAD M. MANA AHMED,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General,
Respondent.


No. 06-3811

On Petition for Review of an Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A76 512 667.
Argued: September 17, 2007
Decided and Filed: March 20, 2008
Before: MOORE and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; GRAHAM, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Muhammad M. Mana Ahmed, a native and citizen of Yemen, seeks review of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, denying his motion to remand and affirming the determination of the Immigration Judge that he was ineligible for consideration of adjustment of status pursuant to the Child Status Protection Act of 2002 (“CSPA”), Pub. L. 107-208, 116 Stat 927. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to address petitioner’s newly acquired evidence. Accordingly, we grant Ahmed’s petition for review, vacate the BIA’s removal order, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

NICHOLAS ANTONIO GRAHAM,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL MUKASEY, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.


No. 06-4538

On Petition for Review of a Final Order
of the Bureau of Immigration Appeals.
No. A78 424 808.
Argued: January 29, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 20, 2008
Before: MERRITT, DAUGHTREY, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Nicholas Antonio Graham is a citizen of Jamaica who entered the United States as a visitor, overstayed his visa, and was subsequently convicted in federal court on two counts of conspiracy to commit mail fraud. He now petitions for review of the final administrative order of removal based on his status as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Graham contends that the expedited removal procedure to which he was subjected, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), violated both his due process and his equal protection rights. We find no merit to these contentions and, therefore, deny the petition for review.