CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE DESHAWN CLARK,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 20-1887
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:19-cr-00234-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.
Argued: July 20, 2021
Decided and Filed: August 26, 2021
Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Jermaine Clark appeals the sentence entered by the district court after he pleaded guilty to two bank robbery counts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). For the reasons stated below, we VACATE Clark’s sentence and REMAND the case to the district court for resentencing.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
RAYMOND A. TWYFORD, III,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
TIM SHOOP, Warden,
Respondent-Appellant.
   No. 20-3346
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:03-cv-00906—Algenon L. Marbley, Chief District Judge.
Argued: April 8, 2021
Decided and Filed: August 26, 2021
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Tim Shoop, the warden of the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, appeals from the district court’s order (“transport order”) requiring the warden to transport Raymond Twyford, an Ohio death-row inmate, to The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, affiliated with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, for neurological imaging (a CT/FDG-PET scan) in support of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court issued the transport order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, in aid of its jurisdiction over Twyford’s habeas petition. For the following reasons, we hold that we have jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine to review the warden’s appeal, and we AFFIRM the district court’s transport order.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
LEE BRIGGS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 20-4133
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:18-cv-00552—Matthew W. McFarland, District Judge.
Argued: June 10, 2021
Decided and Filed: August 26, 2021
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Lee Briggs, a Black man, worked as a compensation analyst for the University of Cincinnati (UC) Human Resources department. In July 2013, the HR department hired Cassandra Wittwer, a Caucasian woman, in the same position but at a much higher salary than Briggs. Over the next several years, Briggs’s pay stagnated while Wittwer’s rapidly increased. Briggs contends that after he submitted a claim of discrimination, UC retaliated by revising a job posting for which he had been encouraged to apply so that he was no longer eligible. Briggs sued UC, asserting claims of wage discrimination on the basis of race and sex, and retaliation for filing his complaint. The district court granted UC’s motion for summary judgment. Because there remain genuine disputes of material fact as to Briggs’s claims, we REVERSE.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
AUGUST CASSANO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
TIM SHOOP, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 18-3761
On Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:03-cv-01206—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: August 26, 2021
Before: SILER, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. The petition then was circulated to the full court. Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.

Therefore, the petition is denied. Judge Siler would grant rehearing for the reasons stated in his dissent.