CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ABIGAIL LADD; CHRISTINA GONZALES; IDA DUENKE; GERARDO SALDAÑA; DAVID SALDAÑA; MARCELINO SALDAÑA; ALICIA ROBERTS; MELINDA ADDENBROCK; DEANNA MCCRATE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
JACK MARCHBANKS, Ohio Department of Transportation,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-4136
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:19-cv-01609—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.
Argued: August 6, 2020
Decided and Filed: August 20, 2020
Before: NORRIS, NALBANDIAN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. “It is not in the power of individuals to call any state into court.” 3 Debates on the Constitution 533 (J. Elliot ed. 1876) (James Madison). This principle of state sovereign immunity was foundational to the formation of our republic. Certain constitutional provisions and acts of Congress have abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity— and of course the States may waive their immunity at their pleasure. But by and large the States remain protected from private civil suits. We held as much for takings claims brought against states in federal court. DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 526 (6th Cir. 2004). So when the plaintiffs here brought a takings claim against an Ohio official and Ohio asserted its sovereign immunity as an affirmative defense, the district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because DLX remains the law of this circuit, we AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DANIEL B. FLEISCHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 19-3719
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 4:18-cr-00209-1—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: August 20, 2020
Before: BATCHELDER, BUSH, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. On April 8, 2019, Daniel B. Fleischer pleaded guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a minor (Minor Victim #1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2551(a); and one count of receipt and distribution of visual depictions of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2552(a)(2). Fleischer’s plea agreement with the Government was made pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(A). The parties agreed to dismiss Count Four of the superseding indictment, charging Fleischer with exploitation of a minor victim (Minor Victim #2), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2551(a). However, his plea agreement did include a section labeled, “RELEVANT CONDUCT,” which contained Fleischer’s admission to the offense conduct involving Minor Victim #2. Following Fleischer’s plea, the district court sentenced Fleischer to a within-Guidelines sentence of 447 months.

Fleischer now appeals the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Specifically, Fleischer argues the district court committed error in (1) applying to his sentence both a multiple count adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(d)(1), based on his conduct in relation to Minor Victim #2, and a pattern of activity enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(B)(5); and (2) placing an unreasonable amount of weight on the “seriousness” of his conduct as a sentencing factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We find Fleischer’s arguments unpersuasive. Because we determine that the district court did not commit error when handing down Fleischer’s sentence, which was both within the Guidelines and based on the factors set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we AFFIRM the 447-month sentence imposed by the court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
FREDDIE CHASE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MATT MACAULEY, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 19-1202
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:17-cv-13435—Denise Page Hood, District Judge.
Argued: May 5, 2020
Decided and Filed: August 20, 2020
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Chief Judge. Freddie Chase is a habeas petitioner who was sentenced under a Michigan sentencing scheme that allowed judge-found facts to raise his mandatory minimum sentence. The parties agree that this violated Chase’s Sixth Amendment rights as described by the Supreme Court in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). They dispute, however, whether Chase can overcome the procedural default of his Alleyne claim, as he did not raise this claim on direct appeal. Chase argues that his appellate counsel’s failure to raise an Alleyne claim on direct appeal constituted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, thereby demonstrating cause and prejudice to excuse any procedural default. We agree. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court, conditionally grant Chase’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and remand to the district court with instructions to remand to the state sentencing court.