|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBBY LEE MCFALLS, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.
No. 05-00079-1—Robert L. Echols, District Judge.
Argued: December 1, 2009
Decided and Filed: January 28, 2010
Before: GUY, ROGERS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Robby McFalls appeals his classification as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, based on his prior convictions in South Carolina for four counts of second degree burglary of a dwelling and one count of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. McFalls argues on appeal that his four convictions for burglary, sentenced on the same day, should be counted as a single sentence for criminal history purposes. He also argues that conviction under South Carolina’s second degree burglary statute does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence because the statute includes crimes as far as 200 feet from the home. Finally, he argues that South Carolina’s common-law crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence because the crime includes some actions taken recklessly or negligently rather than intentionally. Each of these three arguments has merit, and together they require a remand for further proceedings.
|
SUE FRITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF COMSTOCK, a public body; TIM HUDSON, individually and in his official capacity as the supervisor for the Charter Township of Comstock, Defendants-Appellees. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 07-01254—Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge.
Argued: October 9, 2009
Decided and Filed: January 28, 2010
Before: RYAN, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this appeal from the district court order granting in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims of retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment rights and denying in part Defendant’s Motion as to Plaintiff’s related state tort law claims but dismissing those claims without prejudice, Plaintiff, Sue Fritz, argues that the allegations in her complaint were sufficient to state a claim for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
|
DAVID L. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DAVID MILLS, Warden, Respondent-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Cookeville.
No. 04-00067—William J. Haynes, Jr., District Judge.
Argued: October 8, 2009
Decided and Filed: January 28, 2010
Before: RYAN, COLE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Respondent, David Mills, Warden, appeals the district court’s order granting Petitioner David Lee Robinson, Jr. a conditional writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted the writ based on a finding that the State, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), withheld impeachment evidence that would likely have altered the outcome of the case. For the reasons set forth herein, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of the petition for a conditional writ of habeas corpus.