CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
FRANK CORRIDORE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee. |
No. 22-1301 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:21-cv-10834—Paul D. Borman, District Judge.
Argued: March 15, 2023
Decided and Filed: June 23, 2023
Before: MOORE, THAPAR, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. A Michigan jury convicted Frank Corridore of second-degree sexual criminal conduct for sexually abusing his granddaughter. Corridore appealed his
conviction in state court but to no avail. By the time he filed a habeas petition in federal district
court, he had been released from prison and discharged from parole. So the district court
dismissed the petition, explaining that Corridore was no longer in custody and therefore could
not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Corridore appeals, arguing that he is subject to
lifetime sex-offender registration and electronic monitoring—requirements that he says meet the
custody requirement. We disagree and affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
MRP PROPERTIES COMPANY, LLC; VALERO REFINING
COMPANY–OKLAHOMA; PREMCOR REFINING GROUP
INC.; ULTRAMAR, INC.; VALERO REFINING COMPANY–TENNESSEE LLC; VALERO REFINING–TEXAS, L.P.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 22-1789 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:17-cv-11174—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: June 15, 2023
Decided and Filed: June 23, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SUTTON, Chief Judge. During World War II, the federal government played a
significant role in American oil and gasoline production, often telling refineries what to produce
and when to produce it. It also rationed crude oil and refining equipment, prioritized certain
types of production, and regulated industry wages and prices. All of this affected the operations
of American oil companies at the time. But did it make the United States a refinery “operator”
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42
U.S.C. §§ 9601–75? We hold that it did not and reverse the district court’s contrary
determination. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
ENRIQUE AMAYA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee. |
No. 21-1781 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
Nos. 2:10-cr-20338-2; 2:19-cv-13395—Paul D. Borman, District Judge.
Argued: June 14, 2023
Decided and Filed: June 23, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; LARSEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Enrique Amaya is currently serving three concurrent life
sentences. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging just one of his convictions. The
district court denied the petition without reaching the merits. The court reasoned that even if his
motion were successful, Amaya would still be in custody on the two unchallenged life sentences
and that the $100 special assessment attached to Amaya’s challenged conviction did not warrant
review in the context of a § 2255 petition. We AFFIRM. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
TIMOTHY KING, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
L. LIN WOOD (21-1785); GREGORY J. ROHL, BRANDON
JOHNSON, HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, SIDNEY POWELL,
JULIA HALLER, and SCOTT HAGERSTROM (21-1786);
EMILY NEWMAN (21-1787); STEFANIE LYNN JUNTTILA
(22-1010),
Interested Parties-Appellants,
v.
GRETCHEN WHITMER; JOCELYN BENSON; CITY OF
DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
Defendants-Appellees. |
Nos. 21-1785/1786/1787/22-1010 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:20-cv-13134—Linda V. Parker, District Judge.
Argued: December 8, 2022
Decided and Filed: June 23, 2023
Before: BOGGS, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Three voters and three Republican nominees to the
electoral college in Michigan brought this suit in a bid to overturn the results of the state’s 2020
presidential election. The complaint plausibly alleged that Republican election challengers had
been harassed and mistreated during vote counting at the TCF Center in Detroit, in violation of
Michigan law. But the complaint also alleged that an international “collaboration”—with origins
in Venezuela, extending to China and Iran, and including state actors in Michigan itself—had
succeeded in generating hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes in Michigan, thereby
swinging the state’s electoral votes to Joseph Biden. Many of those allegations—particularly the
ones concerning Dominion voting machines—were refuted by the plaintiffs’ own exhibits to
their complaint. Other allegations arose from facially unreliable expert reports; still others were
simply baseless. The district court found the entirety of the plaintiffs’ complaint sanctionable,
and ordered all of plaintiffs’ attorneys, jointly and severally, to pay the defendants’ and the City
of Detroit’s reasonable attorney’s fees. We find only part of the complaint sanctionable, and
thus reverse in part and affirm in part. |
|