CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTOPHER BRATTAIN,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 07-1594

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 06-00293—Robert Holmes Bell, Chief District Judge.
Argued: June 10, 2008
Decided and Filed: August 25, 2008
Before: MARTIN and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; JORDAN, Senior District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. The United States appeals the sentence imposed by the district court on Christopher Brattain after he pled guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. The district court refused to apply a five-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b), stating that the enhancement applied only to offenders who had abused multiple victims, and Brattain had abused a single victim over a period of seven years. The government argues that the district court’s refusal to apply the enhancement was error because Brattain qualified as a repeat-offender, and Congress explicitly revised the enhancement to apply to repeat-offenders who abuse only a single victim. We agree with the government, VACATE Brattain’s sentence, and REMAND for resentencing.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MALIK D. HARDIN,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 06-6277

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 05-00105—Thomas A. Varlan, District Judge.
Argued: October 30, 2007
Decided and Filed: August 25, 2008
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case poses a series of intriguing questions: first, to enter a residence to execute an arrest warrant, must a police officer have probable cause or only “reason to believe” that the suspect is inside the residence, and did the officers’ knowledge in this case satisfy either standard? Second, does an apartment manager become an agent of the government when officers request that the manager enter an apartment to verify the presence of a suspect? Because we hold that the officers’ knowledge was insufficient under either standard and that the apartment manager was acting as an agent of the government in this case, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of Defendant-Appellant Malik D. Hardin’s (“Hardin”) motion to suppress, VACATE Hardin’s conviction, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.