CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CRAIG D. BRANCH,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 06-5393

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 03-00067—John G. Heyburn II, Chief District Judge.
Argued: April 24, 2008
Decided and Filed: August 12, 2008
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, CLAY, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Craig Branch (“Branch”) entered a conditional guilty plea to one charge of possessing with the intent to distribute an amount of cocaine in excess of 500 grams, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(ii)(II); the plea agreement preserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of pretrial motions, which he now appeals. Branch also appeals his sentence. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM Branch’s conviction and sentence.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

REGINA RUSSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO; RANDALL J. MCELFRESH; NORINE T. WASIELEWSKI; KRISTINE ARMSTRONG; and JOHN E. MILLS, M.D.,
Defendants-Appellees.


No. 07-3998

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 05-07430—Jack Zouhary, District Judge.
Argued: June 3, 2008
Decided and Filed: August 12, 2008
Before: DAUGHTREY and MOORE, Circuit Judges; DUGGAN, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge. In this employment discrimination action, plaintiff Regina Russell appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants, the University of Toledo, Randall McElfresh, Norine Wasielewski, Kristine Armstrong, and John Mills, on the plaintiff’s claims of disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation on the basis of race, brought pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17, chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code, and 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1985. Russell contends that she raised genuine issues of material fact that militate against the grant of summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the district court did not commit reversible errors of law in dismissing Russell’s claims against the defendants, and we therefore affirm the order of summary judgment.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM J. DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 05-3784

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
No. 99-00110—Walter H. Rice, District Judge.
Argued: June 2, 2006
Decided and Filed: August 12, 2008
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; KEITH and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted William Davis of two counts of bank fraud, after which the district court calculated a sentencing-guidelines range of 30 to 37 months. The court imposed a sentence of one day in prison because, among other reasons, Davis was 70 years old at the time of sentencing and because he had committed the underlying crimes 14 years earlier. We reverse because the second explanation for the court’s sentence represents an inappropriate sentencing factor on this record.