CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
YNDALECIO GAONA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MIKE BROWN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee. |
No. 21-2799 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:13-cv-13204—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: May 3, 2023
Decided and Filed: May 24, 2023
Before: BOGGS, McKEAGUE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-Appellant Yndalecio Gaona challenges the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, arguing that the state court that
convicted him of various criminal charges improperly enhanced his sentence based upon a
previous uncounseled state misdemeanor conviction. He argues that because it was uncounseled,
the conviction—which resulted in a sentence of time served—was unconstitutional under the
Sixth Amendment, and thus it was unconstitutional for the state court to use the conviction to
enhance his sentence. Because the law on this point is not clearly established, we affirm the
district court’s denial of Gaona’s petition. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTWONE MIGUEL SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 21-5945 |
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:20-cr-00009-1—Joseph M. Hood, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 24, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, GRIFFIN,
KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER,
MURPHY, DAVIS and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
ORDER
_________________________
A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en banc of
this case. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:
The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and
judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a
pending appeal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court are vacated,
the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.
The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral
argument as soon as possible. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARD,
Respondent,
ESTATE OF DANIEL A. AYRES,
Intervenor.
ESTATE OF DANIEL A. AYRES,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARD,
Respondent,
WEATHERFORD US, L.P.,
Intervenor. |
Nos. 20-4342/21-3282
No. 21-3017 |
On Petitions for Review from the United States Department of Labor.
Nos. ARB 2018-0006; 2018-007; 2018-0074.
Argued: January 25, 2023
Decided and Filed: May 24, 2023
Before: BUSH, LARSEN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Daniel Ayres brought an administrative action complaining
that his former employer, Weatherford U.S., L.P., had retaliated against him for engaging in
protected behavior under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). An administrative
law judge (ALJ) in the Department of Labor found for Ayres and awarded him backpay,
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Ayres passed away in the middle of
the ALJ proceedings. The Administrative Review Board (Board) affirmed the ALJ’s awards,
except for punitive damages. The Board concluded that the punitive damages claim had abated
upon Ayres’s death. Ayres’s estate petitions for review of the reversal of punitive damages.
Weatherford petitions for review of the Board’s ruling that it violated the STAA and the
accompanying damages and fees. For the reasons that follow, we DENY both petitions. |
|