CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GARY ROBERGE,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 06-5704

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga.
No. 04-00070—R. Allan Edgar, District Judge.
Argued: March 5, 2009
Decided and Filed: May 20, 2009
Before: SILER, COOK, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COOK, Circuit Judge. A grand jury indicted Gary Roberge for possessing firearms and ammunition as an unlawful user of controlled substances (Count 1) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), attempting to manufacture methamphetamine (Count 2) in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846, possessing equipment and materials that could be used to manufacture methamphetamine with the intent to so use the items (Count 3) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug-trafficking crimes (Count 4) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Roberge appeals his conviction and sentence, and we affirm.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

GREGORY COBBINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant-Appellee.


No. 07-6491

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee at Columbia.
No. 06-00073—Robert L. Echols, District Judge.
Argued: December 4, 2008
Decided and Filed: April 2, 2009
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of defendant, Tennessee Department of Transportation, in an action for race discrimination by plaintiff, Gregory Cobbins, pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. On appeal, Cobbins claims error in two evidentiary rulings by the district court: (1) the exclusion of an exhibit offered by plaintiff as hearsay due to the lack of an appropriate witness to lay the proper foundation for the document, and (2) the granting of a motion in limine in which the district court prohibited the admission of certain evidence from a prior action between the same parties. Because both rulings were in error, we reverse the judgment of the district court.