CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
RONALD JOHNNY-WAYNE MORRELL (20-1238); RICARDO W. EDMONDS (20-1347); ANTHONY E. THOMPSON (20-1448); RONALD KENNEDY (20-1752),
Petitioners-Appellees,
v.
WARDENS,
Respondents-Appellants.
   Nos. 20-1238/1347/1448/1752
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
Morrell: No. 2:17-cv-10961—George Caram Steeh, III, District Judge;
Edmonds: 2:18-cv-11691—Sean F. Cox, District Judge;
Thompson: 2:18-cv-13959—Terrence George Berg, District Judge;
Kennedy: 2:17-cv11578—Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge.
Argued: July 29, 2021
Decided and Filed: September 3, 2021
Before: GIBBONS, STRANCH, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioners Ronald Morrell, Ricardo Edmonds, Anthony Thompson, and Ronald Kennedy each filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Eastern District of Michigan asking for relief based on Michigan’s sentencing guidelines. The district courts held that the petitioners were entitled to relief because they were sentenced under Michigan’s formerly mandatory sentencing guidelines that included enhancements for judicially found facts. The district courts conditionally granted the petitions and remanded petitioners’ cases to their respective state trial courts for resentencing. The state now agrees that Michigan’s mandatory guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment and concedes that petitioners are entitled to some form of relief. The state argues, however, that instead of remanding for resentencing, the district court should have remanded petitioners’ cases for a more limited remedy known as a Crosby hearing where the trial court determines whether it would have issued a materially different sentence had the Michigan guidelines been advisory rather than mandatory at the time of the original sentencing. Because the district courts acted within their discretion to dispose of these habeas cases as law and justice require, we affirm the district courts’ judgment in each case.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MARC VALENTINO BARRERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MOUNT PLEASANT, MICHIGAN; ISABELLA COUNTY, MICHIGAN; CAREY MURCH; JEFF THOMPSON; JACOB EGGERS; CHRISTOPHER CLULEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-1863
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:19-cv-11807—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: July 29, 2021
Decided and Filed: September 3, 2021
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; SUHRHEINRICH and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Chief Judge. At stake in this § 1983 lawsuit is whether Marc Barrera’s refusal to provide his name during an investigatory stop gave law enforcement officers probable cause to arrest him under Michigan law. The district court rejected the claim. We affirm.