|
RODERICK DAVIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BETTY MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 99-02400—James G. Carr, Chief District Judge.
Argued: July 18, 2007
Decided and Filed: November 12, 2008
Before: MERRITT, COLE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. The Ohio courts have upheld the sentence of defendant Roderick Davie to death for the brutal and gruesome murder of two victims. He was also convicted on an attempt to kill a third. On a subsequent petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, the district court below rejected contentions that defendant’s Miranda rights had been violated, that his penalty-phase jury instructions had been constitutionally deficient, and that prosecutorial conduct had denied him due process. These determinations were correct, notwithstanding Davie’s arguments on appeal.
With respect to the Miranda claim in particular, the substantial deference that the law requires us to give to the state court’s application of United States constitutional law in habeas cases compels us to uphold the Ohio courts’ denial of Davie’s Miranda claim. Indeed, even fresh application of Supreme Court precedent shows that Davie’s Miranda rights were not violated by the police actions in this case, which included four instances of questioning—each following a Miranda warning—over a six-hour period.
|
In re: JANICE B. MEADOWS, Debtor. __________________________________________ BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. d/b/a CheckSmart, Appellant, v. JANICE B. MEADOWS, Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton.
No. 06-30887
Argued: August 12, 2008
Decided and Filed: November 12, 2008
Before: GREGG, McIVOR, and PARSONS, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.
MARCIA PHILLIPS PARSONS, Chief Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. d/b/a CheckSmart (“Buckeye”) appeals an order of the bankruptcy court holding that Buckeye violated the automatic stay when, after receiving notice of the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing, it refused to unconditionally return funds received from the post-petition presentment of the Debtor’s check. Because we conclude that the funds held by Buckeye were no longer property of the estate and that no stay violation occurred, we reverse the order of the bankruptcy court.