|
DOUGLAS C. BRANDON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICHARD JONATHAN BLECH, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 99-00479—Jennifer B. Coffman, Chief District Judge.
Submitted: March 3, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 24, 2009
Before: NORRIS, COOK, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”) represents Richard Blech in a civil suit. Proskauer sought overdue legal fees from Blech, who refused to pay, and Proskauer moved to withdraw as his counsel. The district court denied Proskauer’s motion, effectively compelling the firm to continue its representation without compensation. Proskauer appealed and we reverse, holding that the district court abused its discretion.
|
FRANK J. LAWRENCE, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. 48TH DISTRICT COURT, Respondent-Appellee. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 05-72701—Paul D. Borman, District Judge.
Argued: December 12, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 24, 2009
Before: KENNEDY and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; THAPAR, District Judge.
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Frank J. Lawrence, Jr., filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus1 in federal district court after the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Township, Michigan convicted him of interference with a police officer in the discharge of his duties.2 The district court denied Lawrence’s petition. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
|
BI FENG LIU, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. |
|
On Petition for Review of a Final Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A79 424 638.
Argued: January 13, 2008
Decided and Filed: March 24, 2009
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Bi Feng Liu, a native and citizen of China, was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge (IJ). He subsequently filed a motion to reopen proceedings based upon changed country conditions and changed personal conditions. The IJ denied Liu’s motion, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s denial of the motion without a hearing. Liu petitions for review of the BIA’s decision, arguing that the BIA (1) abused its discretion in finding that he failed to show changed country conditions, (2) erred in determining that Liu was ineligible to file a successive asylum application based upon changed personal circumstances, and (3) erred in failing to consider whether Liu qualified for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Because the BIA acted within its discretion, we DENY Liu’s petition for review.