CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
AMBER GASCHO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
GLOBAL FITNESS HOLDINGS, LLC, doing business as Urban Active,
Defendants-Appellants (17-3579 & 17-3827),

DAHL ADMINISTRATION, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee (17-3821/3822/3825/3826/3827),

LAURENCE E. PAUL (17-3577 & 17-3821); ROYCE G. PULLIAM (17-3578 & 17-3825); TOMI ANNE PULLIAM (17-3804 & 17-3826); STEPHEN PAUL (17-3805 & 17- 3822),
Interested Parties-Appellants.
   Nos. 17-3577/ 3578/ 3579/ 3804/
3805/ 3821/ 3822/ 3825/ 3826/ 3827
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:11-cv-00436—Edmund A. Sargus Jr., Chief Judge.
Argued: October 11, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 15, 2017
Before: SUTTON, DONALD, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. The contempt power ensures that the judiciary’s mandates are authoritative rather than advisory. But an imperious judiciary is just as problematic as a powerless one. So the contempt power is limited: A party cannot be held in contempt unless it has violated a definite and specific court order. Exactly when a court order becomes definite and specific is the question of this appeal.

. . .

For the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the district court’s contempt finding and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
BRIAN D. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 17-3211
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
Nos. 1:06-cr-00244-1; 1:16-cv-00520—Solomon Oliver Jr., District Judge.
Argued: October 5, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 15, 2017
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. In this case the district court denied Brian Williams’ motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Williams received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (“ACCA”), and he petitioned for relief in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Johnson, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (“Johnson II”), which struck down the residual clause of the ACCA as unconstitutional. Because binding circuit precedent establishes that Williams necessarily qualified for the enhancement under the ACCA elements clause, he is not entitled to relief.