CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
PATRICK LEONARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, OHIO STATE PENITENTIARY,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 15-3653
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:09-cv-00056—Susan J. Dlott, District Judge.
Argued: October 20, 2016
Decided and Filed: January 23, 2017
Before: CLAY, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Patrick Leonard, who was convicted and sentenced to death on June 28, 2001, appeals the order of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which he had sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s order.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
KELLY SERVICES, INC.; KELLY PROPERTIES, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CREATIVE HARBOR, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-1200
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:14-cv-11249—Matthew F. Leitman, District Judge.
Argued: October 19, 2016
Decided and Filed: January 23, 2017
Before: KEITH, BATCHELDER, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Creative Harbor, LLC (“Creative Harbor”) appeals the judgment entered by the district court on February 1, 2016, voiding Creative Harbor’s trademark applications numbered 86198230 and 86198309, respectively. Creative Harbor challenges the district court’s determinations that: (1) Creative Harbor lacked a bona fide intention to use its requested mark in commerce with respect to some of the goods and services identified in its trademark applications, in violation of § 1(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b); and (2) if Creative Harbor lacked such intent with respect to any of the goods and services, the applications must be voided in their entirety. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM IN PART and VACATE IN PART the district court’s judgment. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.