CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
YNDALECIO GAONA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MIKE BROWN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 21-2799
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:13-cv-13204—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Argued: May 3, 2023
Decided and Filed: May 24, 2023
Before: BOGGS, McKEAGUE, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-Appellant Yndalecio Gaona challenges the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, arguing that the state court that convicted him of various criminal charges improperly enhanced his sentence based upon a previous uncounseled state misdemeanor conviction. He argues that because it was uncounseled, the conviction—which resulted in a sentence of time served—was unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment, and thus it was unconstitutional for the state court to use the conviction to enhance his sentence. Because the law on this point is not clearly established, we affirm the district court’s denial of Gaona’s petition.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTWONE MIGUEL SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 21-5945
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:20-cr-00009-1—Joseph M. Hood, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 24, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, GRIFFIN,
KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER,
MURPHY, DAVIS and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

A majority of the Judges of this Court in regular active service has voted for rehearing en banc of this case. Sixth Circuit Rule 35(b) provides as follows:

The effect of the granting of a hearing en banc shall be to vacate the previous opinion and judgment of this court, to stay the mandate and to restore the case on the docket sheet as a pending appeal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the previous decision and judgment of this court are vacated, the mandate is stayed and this case is restored to the docket as a pending appeal.

The Clerk will direct the parties to file supplemental briefs and will schedule this case for oral argument as soon as possible.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD,
Respondent,

ESTATE OF DANIEL A. AYRES,
Intervenor.

ESTATE OF DANIEL A. AYRES,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD,
Respondent,

WEATHERFORD US, L.P., Intervenor.
   Nos. 20-4342/21-3282






    No. 21-3017
On Petitions for Review from the United States Department of Labor.
Nos. ARB 2018-0006; 2018-007; 2018-0074.
Argued: January 25, 2023
Decided and Filed: May 24, 2023
Before: BUSH, LARSEN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Daniel Ayres brought an administrative action complaining that his former employer, Weatherford U.S., L.P., had retaliated against him for engaging in protected behavior under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA). An administrative law judge (ALJ) in the Department of Labor found for Ayres and awarded him backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Ayres passed away in the middle of the ALJ proceedings. The Administrative Review Board (Board) affirmed the ALJ’s awards, except for punitive damages. The Board concluded that the punitive damages claim had abated upon Ayres’s death. Ayres’s estate petitions for review of the reversal of punitive damages. Weatherford petitions for review of the Board’s ruling that it violated the STAA and the accompanying damages and fees. For the reasons that follow, we DENY both petitions.