CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JEFF COURTRIGHT,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CITY OF BATTLE CREEK; CRAIG WOLF and TODD RATHJEN, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 15-1722
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:14-cv-01297—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge.
Argued: March 9, 2016
Decided and Filed: October 14, 2016
Before: DAUGHTREY, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. Prompted by a phone tip, the Battle Creek Police Department dispatched two of its police officers, defendants Craig Wolf and Todd Rathjen, to a local hotel, leading to the arrest of plaintiff Jeff Courtright. Courtright then filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Officer Wolf, Officer Rathjen, and the City of Battle Creek, alleging claims of excessive force, false arrest, and municipal liability. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against them, but the district court denied the motion. The defendants now seek relief on interlocutory appeal, contending that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force and false-arrest claims and that the municipal-liability claim fails as a matter of law. Because Courtright alleged a plausible claim that the officers violated his clearly established constitutional rights, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the excessive-force and false-arrest claims. We also dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, the appeal of the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss the municipal-liability claim.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLARENCE RAY BONDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 15-2405
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:09-cr-00185-4—Gordon J. Quist, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: October 14, 2016
Before: DAUGHTREY, GIBBONS, COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. In April 2010, Clarence Bonds pled guilty to a drug-conspiracy charge and was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, which represented a significant downward variance from his guideline range of 210 to 262 months. In November 2015, the district court denied Bonds’s motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), on the erroneous ground that Bonds had been sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum, when, in fact, there was no applicable mandatory minimum sentence. On appeal, Bonds argues for the first time that the retroactive Amendment 782 opens the door to applying the non-retroactive Amendment 742, which would change his criminal history from a category of VI to V. Only if Amendment 742 applies in conjunction with Amendment 782 is Bonds eligible for a sentence reduction. Because courts do not have the authority to consider the non-retroactive Amendment 742 in determining eligibility for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction, we affirm the district court’s denial of Bonds’s motion.