CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

LOUIS W. DEMIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
T. R. SNIEZEK, Warden; HARLEY G. LAPPIN,
Respondents-Appellees.


No. 07-4129

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 07-00301—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Argued: December 3, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 9, 2009
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; CLAY, Circuit Judge; BERTELSMAN, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Petitioner-Appellant, Louis W. Demis (“Demis”), a federal prisoner at the time he filed the instant action, applied to the district court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the lawfulness of the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) regulations prohibiting prisoner transfer to a community correctional center (“CCC”)—now known as residential re-entry centers (“RRC”)—until the prisoner has served at least ninety percent of his or her sentence. Specifically, Demis argued that the BOP’s regulations, codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21, are inconsistent with the requisite individualized consideration of the factors regarding prisoner transfer set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Adopting the reasoning of other circuits that previously considered the same issue and invalidated the regulations, a magistrate judge recommended that Demis’ petition be granted. The district court, however, determined that Demis’ petition was moot because Demis already had been transferred to a CCC while his habeas application was pending.

On September 4, 2007, Demis filed a timely appeal from the district court’s dismissal order. Shortly thereafter, on September 28, 2007, Demis’ sentence ended and he was released from custody. The government thus urges the Court to dismiss Demis’ appeal as moot, arguing that Demis’ release from custody ended the capacity of this Court to grant meaningful relief.

For the reasons set forth below, we hereby DISMISS Demis’ appeal as moot.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

LEONARD JONES and JAMES E.WHITE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants (07-1051),
Plaintiffs-Appellees (07-1566),
v.
MARY J. BLIGE; ASIAH LEWIS; LUCHANA N. LODGE; UNIVERSAL-MCAMUSIC PUBLISHING, INC., a Division of Universal Studios; UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., in its own right, Successor in Interest, MCA Records, Incorporated.; ANDRE ROMELL YOUNG; BRUCE MILLER; CAMARA KAMBON; MELVIN BRADFORD;MICHAEL ELIZONDO; and JOHN DOE, 1-10; jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees (07-1051), MARY J. BLIGE; ASIAH LEWIS; LUCHANA N. LODGE; UNIVERSAL-MCAMUSIC PUBLISHING, INC., a Division of Universal Studios; UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., in its own right, Successor in Interest,
Defendants-Appellants (07-1566).


Nos. 07-1051/1566

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
No. 04-60184—Marianne O. Battani, District Judge.
Argued: January 16, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 9, 2009
Before: KENNEDY, COLE, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Leonard Jones and James E. White (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Mary J. Blige, a singer, Asiah Lewis and Luchana M. Lodge, lyricists, and Universal-MCA Music Publishing, Inc. and Universal Music Group, Inc. (“Universal”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for copyright infringement. Plaintiffs claim that a song by Blige, “Family Affair,” infringed a song created by Plaintiffs, “Party Ain’t Crunk,” that Plaintiffs submitted to Universal on a demo compact disc (“CD”) prior to the release of Blige’s song. The district court granted summary judgment to all Defendants. Plaintiffs appeal that ruling, and Defendants Blige and Universal appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for attorneys’ fees. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s decisions.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

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


No. 07-3698

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 06-00061—Thomas M. Rose, District Judge.
Argued: January 22, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 9, 2009
Before: MARTIN and MOORE, Circuit Judges; GWIN, District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Christopher Hunter was convicted of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); conspiracy to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); and for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He now appeals.

Hunter makes eleven assignments of error:1 (1) that the court constructively amended count three of the indictment in giving jury instructions, or alternatively, that count three fails to state a federal offense; (2) that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of count one; (3) that the government failed to prove possession in counts two, three, and four; (4) that the court abused its discretion in admitting a photo of Hunter holding a gun; (5) that the Government knowingly used false testimony at trial; (6) that the court abused its discretion in failing to instruct the jury on how to convert ounces to grams; (7) that the Government improperly published a summary chart to the jury; (8) that the court committed clear error in finding at sentencing that the conspiracy involved in excess of fifty kilograms of cocaine; (9) that his counsel at sentencing had a conflict of interest; (10) that the district court improperly calculated his criminal history; and (11) that the court abused its discretion in failing to grant a hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel.

We REVERSE Hunter’s conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), but we AFFIRM Hunter’s other convictions and sentences. Accordingly, we REMAND for such further proceedings consistent with this opinion as are necessary.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEBORAH LUCILLE BLUE,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 07-5296

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 05-00098—Thomas A. Varlan, District Judge.
Submitted: December 12, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 9, 2009
Before: MARTIN and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; CARR, Chief District Judge.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Defendant Deborah Blue requests that her case “be remanded back to the district court for resentencing with instructions to grant a reduction in sentence for substantial cooperation.” Blue had moved the district court to grant a departure under Section 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on her substantial assistance, even though the government did not file a Section 5K1.1 motion. The district court denied her motion and did not depart from the Guidelines range under Section 5K1.1. Because the district court’s sentence was reasonable, we AFFIRM the judgment.