CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
AMBER JONES; DEANNA LACK,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
KENT COLEMAN; HENRY FINCHER; PATRICIA HEIM; TOM LAWLESS; NORMA LESTER; TOM MORTON, in their official capacities as members of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-5908
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 3:16-cv-00677—Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., District Judge.
Argued: February 1, 2017
Decided and Filed: February 15, 2017
Before: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. This case calls upon us to decide whether the district court properly abstained from exercising its jurisdiction in a case alleging that Tennessee’s Campaign Financial Disclosure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 2-10-101 et seq., unconstitutionally burdens the rights of free speech and association. We find that the district court’s abstention was improper in this case, especially in light of the alleged chilling effects of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CORMETECH, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-3305
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 5:14-cv-00514—Kathleen B. Burke, Magistrate Judge.
Argued: December 8, 2016
Decided and Filed: February 15, 2017
Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. After completion of discovery and dispositive motion briefing, the district court issued an opinion explaining why defendant was entitled to summary judgment on both of plaintiff’s contract claims. As to the first claim, for breach of performance warranty in relation to the sale of a power plant emissions-control catalyst, the court sustained defendant seller’s statute of limitations defense, holding that plaintiff filed its claim at least ten months after the limitations period had expired. As to the second claim, for enforcement of contractual indemnity, the court held there was insufficient evidence to support a reasonable jury finding that plaintiff’s losses resulted from a “defect” in the catalyst or “omission” in defendant seller’s performance. On appeal, plaintiff contends the court erred by failing to view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. We agree. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the district court’s ruling and remand for further proceedings.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOHN R. TURNER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 15-6060
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
Nos. 2:08-cr-20302-1; 2:12-cv-02266—Samuel H. Mays Jr., District Judge.
Argued: October 20, 2016
Decided and Filed: February 15, 2017
Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This case arises because our system of federalism allows dual prosecutions by both state and federal sovereigns for one criminal episode without the protection of double jeopardy. Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959). This appeal presents the question of whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel may attach before formal charges are filed in federal court. Defendant John Turner was arrested in Memphis by officers working with a joint federal-state anticrime task force. He was charged with aggravated robbery pursuant to Tennessee law, and retained counsel to represent him. During the pendency of the state proceedings, the United States Attorney’s Office and Turner’s attorney in the state proceeding discussed settlement regarding forthcoming federal charges arising out of the same conduct that led to the state charges. Turner rejected a federal plea offer regarding the as-yet uncharged federal case, but he subsequently pled guilty to the federal charges pursuant to a less-favorable plea agreement. He filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate or set aside his federal conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations concerning the federal charges. The government argued that because Turner had no Sixth Amendment right to counsel regarding plea negotiations conducted prior to the filing of formal charges against him, counsel could not be constitutionally ineffective. Following Sixth Circuit precedent holding that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach before formal charges are filed, the district court denied the motion without reaching the merits of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Because our precedent requires us to do so, we affirm the judgment of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
LEE E. MOORE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BETTY MITCHELL, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 15-3374
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:00-cv-00023—Susan J. Dlott, District Judge.
Argued: April 27, 2016
Decided and Filed: February 15, 2017
Before: MERRIT, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Lee Moore, convicted of kidnapping, robbing, and murdering Melvin Olinger, appeals the district court judgment that denied his motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). He argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013), and new evidence amount to extraordinary circumstances that justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). But Trevino does not apply here. Trevino expanded the application of Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), only to cases in which a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel could not have been made meaningfully on direct appeal. But Moore brought a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal, and the Ohio Supreme Court adjudicated that claim on the merits. We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
PETER CARL BORMUTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 15-1869
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:13-cv-13726—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge.
Argued: April 19, 2016
Decided and Filed: February 15, 2017
Before: MOORE, GRIFFIN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. The Board of Commissioners in Jackson County, Michigan begins its monthly meetings with a prayer. Peter Bormuth, a resident of Jackson County, filed suit against the County asserting that this prayer practice violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The district court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment and denied Bormuth’s motion for summary judgment, and Bormuth now appeals. We hold that the district court erred in rejecting Bormuth’s argument that the prayer practice coerced residents to support and participate in the exercise of religion. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the County and REMAND for entry of summary judgment in Bormuth’s favor and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.