|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID L. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 04-00083—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Submitted: April 22, 2009
Decided and Filed: August 26, 2009
Before: CLAY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; HOLSCHUH, District Judge.
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant David L. Brown appeals the district court’s judgment imposing a 327-month sentence of imprisonment for charges involving the sexual exploitation of children pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b) and § 2252(a) et seq. In an earlier appeal before this Court, we remanded the case for resentencing with instructions that the district court consider evidence relevant to whether Defendant had exploited more than one minor as required for application of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(d)(1).1 The district court considered the evidence and determined that its prior sentencing determinations were appropriate. Defendant now argues (1) that the court improperly applied the Guidelines on remand and (2) that the sentence imposed is substantively unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM Defendant’s sentence.
|
EUNICE HUNTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VALLEY VIEW LOCAL SCHOOLS, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 06-00207—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.
Argued: June 18, 2009
Decided and Filed: August 26, 2009
Before: KEITH, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Eunice Hunter appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Valley View Local Schools (“Valley View”). Hunter, a custodian for Valley View, was injured in a car accident in 2003. From 2003 to 2005, she took intermittent periods of leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”) while she underwent three rounds of surgery. Soon after Hunter returned to work in August of 2005, Valley View placed her on involuntary leave. Hunter alleges that Valley View impermissibly considered her use of FMLA leave in deciding to place her on involuntary leave. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Valley View, finding that Valley View would have taken the same action regardless of Hunter’s FMLA leave. Because there is evidence that the FMLA leave was a motivating factor in Valley View’s decision, we reverse the grant of summary judgment.