CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CHRISTOPHER MOODY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 19-5015
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
Nos. 3:09-cr-00240-21; 3:17-cv-00611—Aleta Arthur Trauger, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 6, 2020
Before: GUY, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Christopher Moody asks this court to unwind his federal convictions. But his habeas claims never should have reached us in the first place. The district court denied Moody’s habeas petition but certified some of his claims for appeal. Because reasonable jurists could not doubt that the district court properly denied relief, we vacate the certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LAKENTO BRIAN SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-1724
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:06-cr-00032-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 6, 2020
Before: GUY, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Lakento Smith was indicted on gun and drug charges in 2006. Under the then-applicable sentencing laws, Smith was subject to a mandatory minimum life sentence, which the district court imposed. Congress subsequently lowered the penalty for cocaine-base offenses in the Fair Sentencing Act, made retroactive through the First Step Act. Smith moved for relief under the First Step Act and received a reduced sentence of 360 months, the bottom of the new Guideline range for the two counts impacted by the Fair Sentencing Act. The 360 months were to run concurrent to his existing 360-month sentence for his powder cocaine count that was not affected by the Fair Sentencing Act.

Smith now appeals his modified sentence, arguing that the district court should have imposed a below-Guideline sentence for all counts. He essentially asks the court to reopen his sentencing and order the district court to conduct a plenary resentencing, considering new arguments and addressing all counts. But this court has already held that the First Step Act is a limited grant of authority to impose a reduced sentence for certain offenses and does not require a plenary resentencing proceeding.

Smith also contends that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court used a modified AO 247 form order to explain its decision. This argument also fails. Even assuming the district court’s obligation to explain its reasons for imposing the modified sentence was akin to that which applies in initial sentencing, the Supreme Court has recently upheld the use of a similar form order in indistinguishable circumstances. We AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
LAKE BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
SECRETARY OF LABOR; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,
Respondents.
   No. 19-3212
On Petition for Review
of an Order of the Occupational Safety & Health Administration;
No. 16-1300.
Argued: December 12, 2019
Decided and Filed: May 6, 2020
Before: GILMAN, KETHLEDGE, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Lake Building Products, a steel-erection company, challenges the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s conclusion that Lake Building violated a regulation requiring certain workers to use equipment protecting them from falls. Although we agree with the Commission’s interpretation of the relevant regulation, we conclude on this record that Lake Building lacked fair notice of that interpretation. We therefore grant the petition.