CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SANKET HASMUKHBAI PATEL; NEHABEN SANKET PATEL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UR M. JADDOU, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 23-5867
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green.
No. 1:22-cv-00163—Gregory N. Stivers, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: February 9, 2024
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; SUHRHEINRICH and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Sanket and Nehaben Patel applied for visas to stay in the United States on a temporary basis. After fourteen months with no news, they sued the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for failing to process their applications. When the agency granted their visas, the Director filed a motion to dismiss the case for mootness and attached an exhibit showing that the applications had been granted. Realizing that she had not filed the exhibit under seal, the Director moved to seal the exhibit shortly thereafter. The Patels accepted one victory (the granting of their temporary visas) and sought another (statutory penalties for the Director’s disclosure of their personal information). The district court granted the Director’s motion to dismiss the case and denied the Patels’ motion for civil penalties. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEAUNTA BELCHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 22-1650
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:16-cr-20143-2—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: October 25, 2023
Decided and Filed: February 9, 2024
Before: MOORE, GIBBONS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Deaunta Belcher was convicted, and sentenced to life in prison, for his participation in a murder-for-hire scheme, hindering the investigation of a federal offense, and for two other offenses. On direct appeal, Belcher raises issues with both his murder-for-hire and obstruction convictions. Specifically, Belcher argues that his murder-for-hire conviction is invalid because the government and the court constructively amended the indictment such that he was sentenced for a crime with which he was never charged. Likewise, he claims that his obstruction conviction cannot stand because the government prejudicially varied from the indictment when it offered additional proof at trial to support the charge. Belcher also attests that the district court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal on the obstruction charge. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.