CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ANTONIO FRANKLIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CHARLOTTE JENKINS, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 15-3180
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 3:04-cv-00187—Michael R. Merz, Magistrate Judge.
Argued: January 27, 2016
Decided and Filed: October 7, 2016
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; and BOGGS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. More than twelve years ago, Antonio Franklin, an Ohio prisoner sentenced to death, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied Franklin’s petition on the merits and this court affirmed. Five months later, Franklin moved the district court for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), seeking to avail himself of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013). The district court denied Franklin’s motion on the merits and Franklin again appealed. As we explain, Franklin’s Rule 60(b) motion is a “second or successive” habeas application that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider without prior authorization from this court. Because Franklin has not satisfied the gatekeeping requirements applicable to motions for authorization to file a “second or successive” habeas application, he is not entitled to relief.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
NOOR JAHAN SAKHAWATI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
   No. 15-3575
On Petition for Review from the
United States Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A098 225 911.
Decided and Filed: October 7, 2016
Before: GILMAN, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Noor Jahan Sakhawati has filed an Application for Attorney Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Sakhawati’s counsel, billing at an hourly rate of $190.28, seeks $21,248.37 in attorney fees, legal-assistance fees, and expenses for the 104.85 hours claimed to have been spent on the matter prior to the Application for Attorney Fees. He seeks an additional $1,908.20 for the 10.00 hours claimed to have been spent preparing the Application and responding to the United States’s Opposition. For the reasons set forth below, we grant in part Sakhawati’s Application and award a total of $15,653.76 in attorney fees, legal-assistance fees, and expenses.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ALLIED ERECTING AND DISMANTLING CO., INC.; ALLIED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
v.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents,

OHIO & PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.,
Intervenors.
   Nos. 14-3094/15-4020/4021
On Petition for Review of Orders from
the Surface Transportation Board
No. FD 35316.
Argued: June 8, 2016
Decided and Filed: August 22, 2016
Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. wants to evict a railroad company from two sets of railroad tracks on land that Allied claims to own in Youngstown, Ohio. The question before us is whether the Surface Transportation Board has jurisdiction over those tracks. The Board concluded that the tracks at issue here are used by a common carrier and are thus within the Board’s jurisdiction, pursuant to the Interstate Commerce Act. Allied petitions for review, arguing that the tracks are private tracks and thus outside the Board’s jurisdiction. We agree with the Board and deny the petition.