CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
HASKELL G. GREER, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, MICHIGAN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 17-1281
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 5:15-cv-12444—Judith E. Levy, District Judge.
Argued: January 24, 2018
Decided and Filed: March 2, 2018
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; SILER and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. Individual defendants (“the officers”) in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 matter appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. Because we find that the complaint states a plausible claim that the officers violated the plaintiffs’ clearly established Fourth Amendment rights by executing a search warrant on their home in an unreasonable manner, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HATEM ATAYA, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-2611
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cr-20351-3—Sean F. Cox, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 2, 2018
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Hatem Ataya pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and wire fraud. His plea agreement included a waiver of his appeal rights. During his plea colloquy, Ataya acknowledged that he understood that he was waiving these rights. The district court, however, failed to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(J), (K), (L), and (O) during the colloquy. Ataya now seeks to vacate his conviction on the grounds that his plea was unknowing due to these Rule 11 omissions, and asserts that the appellate-waiver provision in his plea agreement is unenforceable because of these same errors. For the following reasons, we hold that Ataya’s appellate waiver is unenforceable, deny the government’s motion to dismiss, and REVERSE his conviction. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.