|
ROBERT J. VAN HOOK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CARL S. ANDERSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 94-00269—George C. Smith, District Judge.
Argued: December 6, 2005
Decided and Filed: March 6, 2009
Before: MERRITT, MARTIN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge. At the request of the majority of the en banc court and in order to avoid the need for an en banc rehearing, the original panel amends its opinion of August 4, 2008, by deleting its discussion of counsel’s failure to seek an independent mental health expert and the failure of counsel to object to the Presentence Report. Therefore, the sole basis for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus is counsel’s failure to investigate mitigating factors.
. . .
Because we have decided that counsel failed to conduct a full mitigation investigation and present available mitigating evidence to the sentencer and thereby offered constitutionally ineffective assistance to Van Hook at the sentencing phase of the trial, we will not decide, and we therefore pretermit, the remaining issues. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case to the district court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus vacating Van Hook’s death sentence unless the State conducts a new penalty phase proceeding within 180 days of remand.
|
GARY PLONA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 06-01144—Ann Aldrich, District Judge.
Argued: January 14, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 6, 2009
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Gary Plona was fired from his job with United Parcel Service (UPS) for violating UPS’s policy that prohibits employees from possessing firearms on its premises. This caused him to sue UPS in federal court, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy embodied in Article I, § 4 of the Ohio Constitution, which guarantees Ohio citizens the right to bear arms for their defense and security. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS, holding that Plona had failed to demonstrate that a clear public policy had been jeopardized by his discharge. In his timely appeal, Plona challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to UPS, as well as its denial of his motion for discovery sanctions against his former employer. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
|
In re GRUSECK & SON, INC., Debtor. ____________________________________ CIT SMALL BUSINESS LENDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. CRAIG KENDRICK, Defendant-Appellee. |
|
On Appeal from the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
No. 06-20076—William S. Howard, Bankruptcy Judge.
Submitted: January 8, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 6, 2009
Before: KETHLEDGE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; POLSTER, District Judge.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. The bankruptcy trustee commenced an adversarial proceeding under 11 U.S.C. § 547 to avoid, as a preferential transfer, a mortgage recorded in Kentucky by CIT Small Business Lending Corporation (“CIT”). The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of CIT, but the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) reversed and remanded for a determination whether certain elements of the trustee’s preference action are met. CIT now seeks review of the BAP’s order. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.