CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HARRY FRENCH,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 20-5104
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:18-cr-20343-2—Mark S. Norris, Sr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 30, 2020
Before: ROGERS, SUTTON, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Harry French was convicted by a jury of carjacking and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. French appeals the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. But French’s challenge on appeal to the credibility of trial witnesses is not a valid basis for overturning his conviction, and in any event, sufficient evidence supported a finding of guilt. French’s second contention that he cannot be legally convicted of both offenses under the Double Jeopardy Clause is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 106 (6th Cir. 1994). Finally, the district court properly applied the sentencing enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice on the basis of French’s attempt to intimidate a witness by posting a message on Facebook.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DONALD FREED,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHELLE THOMAS; COUNTY OF GRATIOT,
Defendants-Appellees,

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Intervenor-Appellee.
   No. 18-2312
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:17-cv-13519—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.
Argued: May 9, 2019
Decided and Filed: September 30, 2020
Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. After Donald Freed fell behind on his property taxes by about $1,100, the State of Michigan foreclosed on his real property, sold it at auction for about half of its fair market value, and kept all the proceeds of the sale. Freed got nothing. So he filed this lawsuit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, inter alia, an unconstitutional taking by state and local officials in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

We do not address the merits of Freed’s claims. We hold only that neither the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”) nor the related doctrine of comity forestall Freed’s suit from proceeding in federal court. Thus, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings.