CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOYCE WATFORD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
Defendant,

JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; JEFFERSON COUNTY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-6183
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:13-cv-00425—Thomas B. Russell, District Judge.
Argued: March 9, 2017
Decided and Filed: September 1, 2017
Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. At issue in this employment-discrimination case is a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) negotiated and signed by DefendantsAppellees Jefferson County Board of Education (“JCBE”) and Jefferson County Teachers Association (“JCTA”). Under the CBA, if an employee believed that they were discriminated against, that employee could file a grievance with JCBE. However, if the employee subsequently filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the CBA required that the grievance proceedings be held in abeyance. Such was the case here. Watford filed a grievance on the day she was terminated—October 13, 2010—and those proceedings are still in abeyance. Frustrated that her grievance proceedings were held in abeyance simply because she filed an EEOC charge, Watford brought this case, alleging that JCBE and JCTA retaliated against her for filing an EEOC charge. The district court awarded summary judgment against Watford, an award that is inconsistent with this court’s admonition that “an adverse action against [an] employee because the employee had pursued the statutorily protected activity of filing a charge with the EEOC” is “clearly” retaliation. See EEOC v. SunDance Rehabilitation Corp., 466 F.3d 490, 498 (6th Cir. 2006). Because of this inconsistency, and because the CBA is retaliatory on its face, we REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
TERRY EUGENE PENNEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 16-5089
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga.
Nos. 1:04-cr-00036-1; 1:11-cv-00035—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: September 1, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and MOORE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Chief Judge. Terry Penney appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Penney argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to amend as untimely without first considering the merits of his actual-innocence claim. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VIVIEN TROY COOK,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-6441
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga.
No. 1:04-cr-00036-5—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Argued: August 3, 2017
Decided and Filed: September 1, 2017
Before: SILER, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Vivien Cook appeals from the order entered by the district court on September 13, 2016, denying Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court denied the motion because Defendant’s original sentence was based on his status as a career offender pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 4B1.1. According to the district court, Defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction.

For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence.