CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEVEN D. FLOWERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-3742
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:04-cr-00223-1—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 23, 2020
Before: CLAY, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Steven Flowers appeals from the district court’s denial of a motion to reduce his sentence under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. Flowers argues that the district court erred by suggesting that he was ineligible for a reduction because his guidelines range did not change since his original sentencing, even though the First Step Act only concerns statutory sentencing ranges. The district court’s opinion is somewhat unclear on this point, but even if it did consider Flowers ineligible, that error was harmless because the court went on to deny his motion on the merits. On that point, Flowers says the court abused its discretion by failing to consider or give appropriate weight to a variety of factors when it declined to reduce his sentence. But the record reflects that the district court did consider Flowers’ arguments and did not abuse its broad discretion in rejecting them. We therefore affirm the denial of Flowers’ motion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ROMELL BROOM,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
TIM SHOOP, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 19-3356
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:10-cv-02058—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.
Argued: April 7, 2020
Decided and Filed: June 23, 2020
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In an infamous September 2009 incident, the state of Ohio tried to execute death-row inmate Rommel Broom, and failed. More specifically, the state tried to execute Broom by way of lethal injection, but was forced to abandon the effort when the execution team concluded—two hours into the process—that it could not maintain a viable IV connection to Broom’s veins. The state then returned Broom to his cell, to await a second execution attempt on another day. That second execution attempt has not yet happened, however, because the parties have spent the last eleven years litigating whether the U.S. Constitution bars Ohio from ever trying to execute Broom again—Broom relies on both the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishment and the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on “double jeopardy.” The state courts, including the Ohio Supreme Court, have rejected Broom’s contentions on the merits, as did the district court below on habeas review. Broom’s case now comes before us.

We in no way condone Ohio’s treatment of Broom; that it took two hours of stabbing and prodding for the state to realize that it could not maintain a viable IV connection to Broom’s veins is disturbing, to say the least. But because the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”) permits us to reverse state court merits decisions in only a narrow set of circumstances, and because the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision rejecting Broom’s constitutional claims on the merits does not fall within that set of circumstances here, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment denying Broom habeas relief.