CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
BOBBY DODD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE; CHATTANOOGA FIRE AND POLICE PENSION FUND,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-5470
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
No. 1:14-cv-00358—Harry S. Mattice Jr., District Judge.
Argued: November 30, 2016
Decided and Filed: January 18, 2017
Before: NORRIS, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This case arises out of a 2012 amendment to the law governing Chattanooga’s Fire and Police Pension Fund. Before 2013, a Fund member’s surviving spouse could receive benefits after the member died without incurring a proportional reduction in the member’s lifetime benefits. In 2012, the City of Chattanooga removed this “default death benefit” for members who were not eligible to retire as of January 1, 2013. Bobby Dodd was not eligible to retire on that date and therefore opted for a five-percent reduction in current, lifetime benefits so that his wife could receive an additional benefit upon his death. Because Dodd would not have incurred this five-percent reduction prior to the 2012 amendment, he sued the City and the Fund, asserting claims under the federal Contract Clause, Due Process Clause, and Takings Clause, as well as Tennessee’s Law of the Land Clause. Dodd also argued that the 2012 amendment was not validly enacted under local law. The district court granted the City’s and the Fund’s motions for summary judgment on all claims, which Dodd now appeals. Because Dodd does not have a contract or property right to the default death benefit, his constitutional claims fail. Dodd’s challenge to the validity of the amendment’s enactment is also without merit.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT F. CROSS,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 15-5641
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky at London.
No. 6:06-cr-00038—Danny C. Reeves, District Judge.
Argued: April 26, 2016
Decided and Filed: January 18, 2017
Before: KETHLEDGE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; COHN, District Judge.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Robert Cross argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his supervised release a second time based on conduct occurring before the first revocation. We reject that argument and affirm.