CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ANTHONY HART,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HILLSDALE COUNTY, MICHIGAN, KWINN LEVA, TIMOTHY PARKER, and CHRISTINE WAHTOLA (18-1305); CITY OF HILLSDALE, SHELBY RATHBUN, and TODD HOLTZ (18-1307),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 18-1305/1307
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:16-cv-10253—Denise Page Hood, Chief District Judge.
Argued: May 7, 2019
Decided and Filed: September 3, 2020
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; STRANCH and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. In 2011, Michigan narrowed the crimes covered by the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) making Anthony Hart no longer a “sex offender.” Defendants required him to continue registering as one, and he did. In July 2013, he registered an incorrect address and, in January 2014, failed to update his address. Defendants arrested Hart each time, using warrant requests incorrectly representing that he was required to register under SORA. The first time, Hart spent the night in jail; the second time, he served 19 months in prison. When prison officials finally realized the mistake, they released Hart and his convictions were vacated. Hart then sued for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and defamation. Five Defendants, employees of the city police and county sheriff’s departments, moved to dismiss the suit based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion and, for the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM IN PART and REVERSE IN PART.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANGEL CORDERO (19-3540); EDUARDO RIOS VELASQUEZ (19-3543),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 19-3540/3543
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:17-cr-00342—Benita Y. Pearson, District Judge.
Argued: August 5, 2020
Decided and Filed: September 3, 2020
Before: ROGERS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Defendants Angel Cordero and Eduardo Velasquez were convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit murder for hire and conspiring to distribute one kilogram of cocaine. On appeal, defendants argue that their convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence and challenge the admission of other-acts evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Defendants also raise sentencing claims. Defendants’ challenges to their convictions fail because the record demonstrates a sufficient factual basis for their guilt on the charged offenses. Also, the district court correctly admitted the challenged bad-act evidence, as that evidence served permissible purposes under Rule 404(b) and was probative of contested issues in the case. Finally, the district court properly applied the Sentencing Guidelines to calculate Cordero’s base offense level. However, as the Government concedes, a limited remand is required with respect to Velasquez, who was incorrectly sentenced as a career offender.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
OHN DOES 1–10,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DEBRA HAALAND; ELIZABETH WARREN,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-6347
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington.
No. 2:19-cv-00117—William O. Bertelsman, District Judge.
Argued: June 11, 2020
Decided and Filed: September 3, 2020
Before: CLAY, WHITE, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs, ten unidentified minors, appeal the district court’s order dismissing two Defendants, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Debra Haaland, from this defamation suit. Plaintiffs claim that Senator Warren and Representative Haaland committed libel against them by issuing a series of tweets in response to a widely publicized incident on the National Mall in which Plaintiffs were involved. The district court found that Plaintiffs’ defamation claims were barred by sovereign immunity. For the reasons provided in this opinion, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.