CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MARIA MUNIZ-MUNIZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

OHIO IMMIGRANT WORKER PROJECT; FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL, Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-3400
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:09-cv-02865—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.
Argued: March 16, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 24, 2017v Before: MERRITT, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. The Plaintiffs in this case—now only two organizations that represent migrant farmworkers—claim that the United States Border Patrol allows agents at its Sandusky Bay, Ohio station to target persons of Hispanic appearance for questioning. After a bench trial, the district court found that the Plaintiffs had not proved their claim. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GEORGE HOWARD MANDOKA,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-2376
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:15-cr-20418-1—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: August 3, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 24, 2017
Before: SILER, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant George Howard Mandoka (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered by the district court on September 27, 2016, sentencing him to concurrent terms of: (i) life in prison for three counts of aggravated sexual abuse, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c), one count of sexual abuse, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2242(2), and one count of abusive sexual contact, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(2), (5); (ii) fifteen years in prison for two counts of sexual abuse of a minor, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a); and (iii) three years in prison for one count of abusive sexual contact, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2244(a)(2), (5). In brief, Defendant was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing his step-daughter and his niece over a period of years. He argues that the district court erred in admitting evidence during his trial: (i) of his past sexual assaults pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 403; and (ii) that his victims witnessed him physically assault his wife pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. He asks us to vacate his convictions and sentence and remand for a new trial. The district court had original jurisdiction over these offenses because they occurred on tribal land, and we have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM Defendant’s convictions.