CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

RAAHKIIM EL BEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TIM ROOP, MATT MILLER, DARRIN BARLOW, DIANE L. BRYAN, and WILLIAM F. SCHENCK,
Defendants-Appellees.


No. 07-3133

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 06-00257—Michael R. Merz, Magistrate Judge.
Submitted: June 3, 2008
Decided and Filed: July 1, 2008
Before: MERRITT, CLAY, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case arises out of the events surrounding the entry into, and search of, a residence in Xenia, Ohio, and the subsequent arrest of Raahkiim El Bey by Xenia police officers. El Bey claims that the officers unlawfully entered his residence, handcuffed him, and illegally searched his belongings in an effort to verify his identity. The officers, on the other hand, contend that the primary leaseholder of the residence consented to their entry into the home and that El Bey was initially detained only until the officers could determine whether he was the suspect for whom they had a valid arrest warrant. Upon discovering that there was an outstanding arrest warrant from New Jersey for a person named Billie Greene, whose Social Security number matched the one found in El Bey’s residence, and after confirming that El Bey had changed his name from Billie Greene, the officers arrested El Bey.

El Bey subsequently filed a pro se complaint against the police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio state law. The officers moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Their motion for summary judgment was granted by the magistrate judge designated to decide El Bey’s case. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the district court, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE SALVATION ARMY IN THE UNITED STATES; THE SALVATION ARMY EASTERN TERRITORY,
Defendants-Appellees.


No. 07-3822

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 05-00901—George C. Smith, District Judge.
Argued: March 17, 2008
Decided and Filed: July 1, 2008
Before: RYAN, SILER, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RYAN, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff, John Doe, appeals the district court’s summary judgment dismissing Doe’s lawsuit against the defendants, The Salvation Army in the United States and the Salvation Army Eastern Territory.

Doe claims that when he was being interviewed for a job with the Salvation Army, the interviewer asked him about his medications. When Doe acknowledged that he took psychotropic medications, he was rejected for the job, in violation, he alleges, of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), and Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4112.02.

We hold that summary judgment for the defendants was inappropriate because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Doe qualifies as “disabled” under the Rehabilitation Act and whether the Salvation Army’s failure to hire Doe was based solely on Doe’s purported disability.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHAWN JOSEPH MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 06-4583

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 06-00166—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Argued: April 30, 2008
Decided and Filed: July 1, 2008
Before: NORRIS, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Following a jury trial, defendant Shawn Joseph Miller was found guilty on two counts of committing wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and one count of witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3). Thereafter, the district court sentenced Miller to an above-Guidelines term of 125 months of imprisonment.

Miller now appeals, raising four claims: (1) his constitutional right to a fair trial was abridged when he was forced to wear an electronic stun belt during trial; (2) the district court erred in failing to sua sponte order a mental competency hearing; (3) the evidence offered against him at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of guilt on the witness tampering charge; and (4) his sentence was substantively unreasonable. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Miller’s convictions and order a limited remand for resentencing for the purpose of correcting Miller’s term of supervised release.