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. |
|