McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Deborah Thornton is a former employee of Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”). She was discharged on August 24, 2004, when, after a 16- month leave of absence, she did not return to work, despite being notified of return-to-work opportunities. Plaintiff had taken the leave of absence due to stress stemming from sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor, David Bragorgos. Plaintiff did not pursue the return-towork opportunities because she continued to receive treatment for panic disorder and fibromyalgia from health care providers who she says had not released her to return to work. Plaintiff commenced this action in the Western District of Tennessee on April 1, 2005, charging FedEx with sex discrimination and retaliation, in violation of federal and state civil rights laws, and with discrimination based on her disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant FedEx’s motion for summary judgment was granted by the district court in a 19-page opinion and order dated January 22, 2007.1 Proceeding pro se, plaintiff appeals from the district court’s judgment, contending the court failed to view the record evidence in the light most favorable to her. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Frank Henry Hall pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. In his plea agreement, Hall reserved the right to contest his criminal history category under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). He subsequently filed a sentencing memorandum objecting to the addition of one criminal history point for each of two prior misdemeanor convictions. The district court, however, determined that Hall’s prior misdemeanor convictions should be counted under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1) because each sentence was for a term of imprisonment of at least 30 days.

Hall now renews his argument that his two prior misdemeanor offenses should not have been counted because in both instances he was given full credit for time served on earlier unrelated offenses and, therefore, he did not actually serve any time in prison for the misdemeanors in question. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

ANN ALDRICH, District Judge. Defendant-appellant Jameel McGee (“McGee”) appeals his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, arguing that: 1) because his indictment contained no reference to aiding and abetting, the government should not have been permitted to argue it as an alternative theory of criminal liability; 2) the trial evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, entitling him to a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; 3) trial testimony containing statements by a confidential informant was admitted against him in violation of his confrontation clause rights; and 4) his sentence is unreasonable.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm McGee’s conviction and sentence.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Justin Parsons was arrested for the nonfatal shooting of Arthur Frantz, a firefighter with the Pontiac Fire Department. Parsons was a former firefighter who was discharged as a probationary employee of the Fire Department a month and a half before the shooting. Following his arrest, Parsons was detained for approximately two days before he was released. No charges have ever been filed against him in regard to the shooting.

Parsons sued the City of Pontiac and a number of city police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Michigan state law. Specifically, Parsons alleges that his constitutional rights were violated because he was arrested and detained without probable cause. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case requires us to address the scope of protection that should be afforded to employees who disseminate confidential documents in violation of their employer’s privacy policy in the context of employment-related litigation. In December of 2005, Kathleen Niswander’s employment with The Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) was terminated after CIC learned that Niswander had delivered confidential, proprietary documents to her lawyers in a class-action lawsuit against CIC. She was fired for breaching the company’s Privacy Policy and Code of Conduct. This caused Niswander to file a separate lawsuit against CIC, alleging retaliation under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, after which the district court granted CIC’s motion. Niswander now appeals from that decision, arguing that because she delivered the documents in question at the request of her attorneys in the class-action lawsuit, her actions were protected activity for which she could not be fired under the EPA and Title VII. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.