CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JEANNE KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEWARD TRUMBULL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 21-3445
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 4:19-cv-00720—Pamela A. Barker, District Judge.
Argued: January 27, 2022
Decided and Filed: April 7, 2022
Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Jeanne King, a former employee of Defendant Steward Trumbull Memorial Hospital (the “Hospital”), sued the Hospital alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, et seq.; and Ohio Revised Code § 4112, et seq. The Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. King v. Steward Trumbull Mem. Hosp., Inc., No. 19-cv-720, 2021 WL 1578076, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 22, 2021). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK DOUGLAS GOULD,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 20-5284
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga.
No. 1:19-cr-00039-1—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Argued: April 29, 2021
Decided and Filed: April 7, 2022
Before: GUY, DONALD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. This case presents this Court with two purely legal questions: (1) whether a FaceTime call constitutes a “visual depiction” under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(c)(1), and (2) whether responding to a notice or advertisement “involved” “offering or seeking by notice or advertisement” under that same provision. The district court found that a FaceTime call does constitute a “visual depiction” and that the provision is broad enough to cover responding to a notice or advertisement. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ROBERTO ISAAC HERNANDEZ-SERRANO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
   No. 20-3175
On Motion to Vacate the Court’s Previous Opinion and Judgment.
Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals; No. A 208 449 630.
Decided and Filed: April 7, 2022
Before: GUY, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

As a matter of administrative grace, this court granted to Roberto Hernandez-Serrano no fewer than 14 extensions of time to file a petition for rehearing en banc in this case—thereby affording him up to 510 days to file such a petition, rather than the usual 45 days prescribed by Appellate Rule 40(a)(1). Hernandez-Serrano never filed such a petition, because he chose not to file one. Instead, with the help of our mediation office, Hernandez-Serrano eventually obtained complete relief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which rendered further proceedings in our court moot. Hernandez-Serrano now comes to us with a motion to vacate our panel decision in this case, asserting that—“by the vagaries of circumstance”—he was denied “a chance” to seek review of our opinion. Mot. at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). But for 450 days— before his case here became moot—Hernandez-Serrano could have sought review of our decision at any time he liked. His failure to seek that review was a matter of choice, not chance. We deny his motion.