CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DAVID E. MILLER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
TONY MAYS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 14-6445
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:01-cv-00487—Robert Leon Jordan, District Judge.
Argued: November 30, 2016
Decided and Filed: January 9, 2018
Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. David Miller was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Lee Standifer. His sentence was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court and we affirmed the dismissal of his § 2254 habeas petition. Seeking to revisit his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel (IATC) claim in light of Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413 (2013), Miller now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
TRACEY E. GEORGE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
TRE HARGETT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 16-5563
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:14-cv-02182—Kevin H. Sharp, District Judge.
Argued: August 2, 2017
Decided and Filed: January 9, 2018
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. In November 2014, Tennessee voters approved an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution making clear that the Constitution is not to be construed as securing or protecting a right to abortion or requiring funding of an abortion. Understandably, the amendment was a matter of no small controversy. In fact, more votes were cast in favor of and opposition to the amendment than were cast in the governor’s race during the same election. In this litigation, the controversy is still kept alive. That is, since federal court jurisdiction was invoked three years ago, it remains to be determined whether the Tennessee electorate did in fact amend their constitution. This litigation, however, is only marginally related to the public policy controversy, focusing on what might be viewed as much more pedestrian questions, such as whether the votes were counted incorrectly, and whether the votecounting method impermissibly infringed some voters’ rights. We answer “no” to both questions and thus give effect to the express will of the people.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
LEXINGTON H-L SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 17-5562
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:17-cv-00154—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.
Argued: December 7, 2017
Decided and Filed: January 9, 2018
Before: CLAY, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (“the City”) appeals an order granting a preliminary injunction issued by the district court. The order enjoins the City’s enforcement of Ordinance 25-2017 (the “Ordinance”) based on the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims of Plaintiff Lexington H-L Services, Inc., d/b/a Lexington Herald-Leader (“Plaintiff”), brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order and VACATE the injunction.