CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM RANDALL SEXTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 17-1781
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:16-cr-00249-1—Robert J. Jonker, Chief District Judge.
Argued: February 1, 2018
Decided and Filed: May 1, 2018
Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Defendant William Sexton appeals his sentence of 96 months of imprisonment for committing bank robbery by intimidation. Sexton argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to explain why it departed upward by 18 months and imposed a 96-month sentence rather than an alternative sentence. We hold that the district court’s departure was not substantively unreasonable, and we therefore affirm Sexton’s sentence.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MARSHALL GARBER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HERIBERTO MENENDEZ, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-3992
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:17-cv-01214—Patricia A. Gaughan, District Judge.
Argued: April 25, 2018
Decided and Filed: May 1, 2018
Before: GUY, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Minors injured by medical malpractice in Ohio have one year to sue their doctors after they turn eighteen. When Marshall Garber sued Dr. Heriberto Menendez for malpractice in May 2017, one year had come and gone. But Ohio tolls the statute of limitations if the defendant leaves the State. The clock stopped when Dr. Menendez left Ohio for Florida and stayed stopped when he chose to retire there. That differential treatment of residents and non-residents, says Dr. Menendez, violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by disincentivizing individuals from leaving Ohio and offering their services (or retirement spending) in other States. But the Ohio tolling provision does not discriminate against out-of-state commerce any more than many other policy benefits reserved for residents of a given State, including the existence of an estate tax for Ohioans but not for Floridians. We reverse.