CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

RAYMOND L. GEIGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 08-1314

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 06-13633—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: May 1, 2009
Decided and Filed: September 4, 2009
Before: KENNEDY, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Raymond Geiger appeals the grant of summary judgment to Tower Automotive (“Tower”) on his employment discrimination claims pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(a) and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 37.2202 et seq. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found that Geiger failed to make a prima facie showing of age discrimination under either federal or state law and entered judgment as a matter of law for Tower.

For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

BENNY LEE HODGE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
GLENN HAEBERLIN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.


No. 06-6027

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London.
No. 04-00185—Karen K. Caldwell, District Judge.
Argued: October 21, 2008
Decided and Filed: September 4, 2009
Before: MARTIN, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. The district court properly denied habeas corpus in this case because petitioner Benny Lee Hodge has not shown that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. A jury convicted Hodge and sentenced him to death for his role in a 1985 double murder. Hodge advances numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, including a claim that counsel prevented Hodge from testifying on his own behalf and that counsel ineffectively cross-examined the prosecution’s key witness. Because the record does not show that any alleged mistake by Hodge’s counsel meets the standards for deficient performance and prejudice established by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Hodge is not entitled to habeas relief.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL DANOTUS YOUNG,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 08-1394

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 07-00102-001—Paul Lewis Maloney, Chief District Judge.
Argued: June 11, 2009
Decided and Filed: September 4, 2009
Before: SUTTON and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; LIOI, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SARA LIOI, District Judge. Defendant Michael Young (“Young”) appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), as well as his 15-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). For the reasons that follow, we affirm both the conviction and the sentence.