CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAVID WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 06-2018

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 05-80403-001—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.
Argued: March 11, 2008
Decided and Filed: October 16, 2008
Before: SILER, MOORE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. In 2004, police officers in Detroit, Michigan executed a search warrant at a residence, where they arrested Defendant David Williams and seized evidence, including illegal drugs and a firearm. Based on this evidence, Williams was indicted for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Williams moved to suppress the seizure of the drugs and firearm. After the district court denied that motion, Williams entered a conditional plea of guilty to both crimes.

Williams now appeals the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion because the search warrant that established Williams’s illegal use of handguns and identified his apartment did not state any further connection between Williams and the apartment, and because the search warrant failed to establish probable cause in that it relied on “unreliable, conflicting, and uncorroborated information.”

For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

JAMES DAUGHERTY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAJAR PLASTICS, INC,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 06-4608

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 05-02787—Patricia A. Gaughan, District Judge.
Argued: September 17, 2007
Decided and Filed: October 16, 2008
Before: MOORE and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; GRAHAM, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff James Daugherty appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his former employer, defendant Sajar Plastics, Inc., on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (2000), the Ohio Civil Rights Act (“OCRA”), OHIO REV. CODE § 4112.02, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.