CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRET A. DUNNING,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-5164
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville.
No. 7:15-cr-00004—Danny C. Reeves, District Judge.
Argued: October 20, 2016
Decided and Filed: May 18, 2017
Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Bret Dunning was indicted for knowingly receiving and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B). He moved to compel discovery and to suppress evidence that the police seized from his home. After the district court denied his motions and his request for an evidentiary hearing, Dunning entered into a conditional plea agreement, preserving his right to appeal and pleading guilty to one count of knowingly receiving material involving the sexual exploitation of minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced him to 165 months’ imprisonment.

Dunning argues on appeal that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence, that 18 U.S.C. § 2252 is unconstitutionally vague because it provides a stiffer penalty for receipt than for possession of child pornography, and that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We AFFIRM his conviction and sentence.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SOFOKLI GAZELI; MIRELA GAZELI aka Mirela Goxhaj,
Petitioners,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSION, III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
   No. 16-3270
On Petition for Review from the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
Nos. A 097 596 483; A 097 596 484.
Decided and Filed: May 18, 2017
Before: DAUGHTREY, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COOK, Circuit Judge. Facing removal from the United States, Sofokli and Mirela Gazeli asked an immigration judge (IJ) to approve two sets of applications to adjust their immigration status. The IJ concluded that the Gazelis were ineligible for adjustment under their first set of applications and that it lacked jurisdiction to consider their second. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. In their petition for review, the Gazelis raise issues of first impression regarding the interpretation and validity of two immigration regulations. Because the BIA properly applied federal law, and because the challenged regulations are reasonable interpretations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), we DENY their petition for review.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
PEABODY COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; EVA ELIZABETH HILL,
Respondents.
   No. 12-4366
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
No. 12-0026 BLA.
Decided and Filed: December 23, 2014
DAUGHTREY, COOK, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
SUTTON, J. (pp. 3–8), delivered a concurrence to the denial of rehearing en banc in
which KETHLEDGE, J., joined. DONALD, J. (pp. 9–14), delivered a separate opinion.


_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the case. The petition then was circulated to the full court.** No judge has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. This decision was originally filed on December 23, 2014, and inadvertently was not published. The court has now designated the order and separate opinions for full-text publication.

Therefore, the petition is denied