CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

ABDULLAH SHARIF KAAZIM MAHDI, f/k/a Vernon Smith,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MARGARET BAGLEY, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.


No. 05-3471

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 02-00978—Paul R. Matia, District Judge.
Argued: March 6, 2007
Decided and Filed: July 7, 2008
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; MOORE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
AMENDED OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-appellant Abdullah Sharif Kaazim Mahdi (f/k/a Vernon Smith) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. Mahdi argues that the district court erred in finding that: (1) his trial counsel was not ineffective; (2) his appellate counsel was not ineffective; and (3) the retroactive application of a change in Ohio case law did not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mahdi’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES A. GRIFFIN,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 07-3109

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 05-00303—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Argued: April 29, 2008
Decided and Filed: July 7, 2008
Before: NORRIS, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Charles A. Griffin pled guilty to making, uttering, and possessing forged securities of an organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a) and identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7). At his sentencing, the district court announced a sentence that included 70 months imprisonment, a significant upward departure, before Griffin addressed the court. Following an objection by counsel, the district court allowed Griffin to speak, after which it modified the sentence to require drug treatment during supervised release and to recommend drug treatment during incarceration. Griffin argues that: (1) he was denied his right of allocution; and (2) his sentence is unreasonable.

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the defendant was not denied the right of allocution and that the sentence was reasonable.