CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MEMPHIS CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF TENNESSEE AND NORTH MISSISSIPPI; KNOXVILLE CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; FEMHEALTH USA, INC., d/b/a carafem; DR. KIMBERLY LOONEY; DR. NIKKI ZITE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
HERBERT H. SLATERY, III; LISA PIERCEY, M.D.; RENE SAUNDERS, M.D., MELANIE BLAKE, M.D.; AMY P. WEIRICH; GLENN R. FUNK; CHARME P. ALLEN; JASON LAWSON,
Defendants-Appellants.		    No. 20-5969
On Renewed Motion for Partial Stay of Preliminary Injunction.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville;
No. 3:20-cv-00501—William Lynn Campbell, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: February 2, 2022
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; DAUGHTREY, MOORE, COLE, CLAY,
GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, WHITE, STRANCH, DONALD, THAPAR,
BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

UPON CONSIDERATION of defendants’ renewed motion for partial stay of preliminary injunction pending appeal,

AND FURTHER CONSIDERING plaintiffs’ response in opposition and defendants’ reply,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion be, and it hereby is, GRANTED.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLAYTON HALL (20-4128); GREGORY D. FRANKLIN, II (20-4144),
Defendants-Appellants.		    Nos. 20-4128/4144
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:19-cr-00330—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Argued: October 19, 2021
Decided and Filed: February 2, 2022
Before: GILMAN, THAPAR, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
AMENDED OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Clayton Hall and Gregory Franklin, II were convicted by a jury for engaging in a drug-trafficking conspiracy. The district court then sentenced each of them to a 360-month term of imprisonment. They collectively raise six issues on appeal, ranging from Hall’s challenge to the composition of the jury to the sufficiency of the evidence against Franklin. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that none of the claims have merit. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.