CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
M. KATHLEEN MCKINNEY, Regional Director of Region 15 of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
Respondent-Appellant.
   No. 22-5730
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:22-cv-02292—Sheryl H. Lipman, District Judge.
Argued: May 4, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 8, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BOGGS and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Following news coverage of a unionization effort at one of its stores in Memphis (“Memphis Store”), Starbucks fired seven partners1 who worked there (“Memphis Seven”). Workers United (“Union”) filed an action with the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”), charging that Starbucks’s firing of the Memphis Seven, and other anti-union actions, violated section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). Meanwhile, M. Kathleen McKinney, a regional director of the Board, petitioned the district court for temporary injunctive relief pending completion of the Board’s proceedings. The district court found reasonable cause to believe that Starbucks had violated the Act. It also concluded that, because of the chilling impact of the terminations on Union support, some of the requested interim relief, including temporary reinstatement of the Memphis Seven, was just and proper. For the following reasons, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
STEPHEN J. KARES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BRYAN MORRISON, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 21-2845
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.
No. 2:19-cv-00007—Hala Y. Jarbou, District Judge.
Argued: May 3, 2023
Decided and Filed: August 8, 2023
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner, Stephen Kares, appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2012, a jury convicted Kares of third-degree criminal sexual conduct in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520d(1)(b). For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE in part the district court’s order denying as untimely Petitioner’s motion to vacate his sentence but DENY Kares’ motion to expand the certificate of appealability (“COA”) to include his merits claim.