CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DOUGLAS HARRIE STEWART,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
O’BELL “TOM” WINN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 18-1204
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:14-cv-00586—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 27, 2020
Before: STRANCH, READLER, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. A Michigan jury convicted Douglas Harrie Stewart of the premeditated murder of his estranged wife, Venus Stewart. At trial Stewart’s accomplice testified that Stewart persuaded him to help in the murder by claiming that Venus was harming the couple’s children and that, if she ended up killing them, Stewart would go on a “rampage” and “go after her family and the lawyers and prosecutors and jury[.]” Stewart moved for a mistrial based on his accomplice’s testimony about what he had said, arguing that its inflammatory nature prejudiced him in the eyes of the jury. A state appellate court rejected Stewart’s due-process challenge to the accomplice’s testimony. This case asks: Was the state court’s decision contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)? We answer no and affirm the denial of habeas relief.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WALTER MELARA MARTINEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
   No. 19-3908
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 4:19-cv-01411—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.
Argued: January 30, 2020
Decided and Filed: July 27, 2020
Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Walter Melara Martinez (Melara) presents us with a question of statutory interpretation that has divided our sister circuits: Are aliens in withholdingonly proceedings detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226 or 8 U.S.C. § 1231? This question is significant because aliens detained under § 1226(a) are entitled to bond hearings before an immigration judge (IJ) under the federal regulations, while aliens detained under § 1231(a) do not have a right to a bond hearing. In addition to the statutory interpretation issue, Melara argues that after two years of confinement, his continued detention—absent an individualized determination before a neutral decision maker—violates his due process rights.

The district court dismissed the case. In resolving the statutory interpretation question, we hold that § 1231(a) provides the authority for detaining aliens in withholding-only proceedings. Further, because Melara’s removal is reasonably foreseeable, his continued detention does not violate due process at this time under the framework set out in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Melara’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
NIMA NASSIRI,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
THOMAS P. MACKIE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 19-1025
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:18-cv-00213—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 27, 2020v Before: CLAY, WHITE, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Nima Nassiri appeals the district court’s judgment sua sponte denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus as barred by the oneyear statute of limitations of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), id. § 2244(d)(1). On appeal, Nassiri argues that the counsel responsible for his late filing inadequately presented his equitable tolling argument before the district court, due to counsel’s conflicted interests.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND to allow Nassiri an opportunity to develop and present his equitable tolling argument anew, while represented by unconflicted counsel.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH HARVEY WARD, III,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-3395
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:18-cr-00183-1—Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge.
Argued: January 31, 2020
Decided and Filed: July 27, 2020
Before: MERRITT, CLAY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The government appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant Joseph H. Ward, III’s motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The government argues that the district court erred in failing to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). We conclude that the government failed to establish a sufficient nexus between Ward’s drug-dealing and his home. We therefore AFFIRM the district court.