6th Circuit Published Decisions for Week of Apr. 23-27, 2007 (One Ky. Decision)

 

Opinion	Pub Date	Short Title/District
07a0144p.06	2007/04/23	USA v. Esteppe     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington CRIMINAL: SENTENCING RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Tracey Scott Esteppe pled guilty to a charge of armed bank robbery in May of 2005. Based on his prior convictions for escaping from prison and for burglary, Esteppe’s Presentence Report (PSR) concluded that he qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines. Esteppe objected to the career-offender sentence enhancement on the ground that his prior escape and burglaries were all related and therefore constituted just one predicate offense. The district court disagreed and sentenced Esteppe to 188 months of imprisonment, the low end of Esteppe’s enhanced Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Esteppe reasserts his objection to the career-offender enhancement. He also argues that his sentence was unreasonable because the district court did not properly analyze all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
07a0145p.06	2007/04/24	Ege v. Yukins     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City HABEAS CORPUS SOL BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. On July 22, 2005, the district court granted Carol Ege’s petition for a conditional writ of habeas corpus on grounds that (1) admission of bite-mark evidence at Ege’s state trial violated her right under the Due Process Clause to a fair trial, and (2) the performance of Ege’s state trial counsel was unconstitutionally deficient and caused her actual prejudice. The State appeals the district court judgment on both grounds, and argues additionally that Ege’s habeas petition is time-barred under the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(d)(1). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the district court.
07a0146p.06	2007/04/23	Cooey (Filiaggi) v. Strickland     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus CRIMINAL:  STAY OF EXECUTION ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Ohio inmate James J. Filiaggi is scheduled to be executed on Tuesday, April 24, 2007. On Thursday, April 19, 2007, Filiaggi filed a motion to intervene in Richard Cooey’s civil suit challenging Ohio’s lethal injection protocol. On Friday, April 20, 2007, Filiaggi filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction, or an order under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 165l(a), staying his execution. On Monday, April 23, 2007, the district court denied Filiaggi’s motion to intervene and denied as moot his motion for injunctive relief. Filiaggi immediately filed both a notice of appeal from the district court’s order and an emergency motion for stay of execution to permit him to pursue that appeal. Filiaggi seeks an order from this Court staying his execution so that he may continue his quest to intervene in Cooey v. Strickland, 479 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2007), by appealing the district court’s order denying his motion to intervene in that case. * * * We have carefully reviewed the law and the facts underlying Filiaggi’s motion to intervene and for a stay of execution, the district court’s Opinion and Order denying the motion, and the briefs of Filiaggi and the State with regard to Filiaggi’s Emergency Motion. We conclude that, for the reasons stated by the district court, Filiaggi has not demonstrated any likelihood that he could succeed on the merits of his motion to intervene. Further, we conclude that because Filiaggi has not demonstrated a likelihood of success with regard to his attempt to intervene, and in light of the State’s strong interest in proceeding with its judgment and the patent untimeliness of Filiaggi’s motion, he has not demonstrated any basis upon which this court should exercise its equitable power to stay his execution. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 649-50 (2004). Accordingly, the Emergency Motion for Stay of Execution is DENIED.
07a0147p.06	2007/04/26	Freightliner v. DaimlerChrysler Vans     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville CIVIL PROCEDURE:  Failure to state a claim BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons outlined below, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part. FOK now only requests that we review the following two aspects of its original claims, both of which are directed solely at DC Vans, not at FLLC: (1) whether it was proper for the district court to dismiss FOK’s claims under the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-25-1301 to 1314; and (2) whether it was proper for the district court to dismiss FOK’s claims under the federal Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 13 (d) and (e).
07a0148p.06	2007/04/27	Allison v. East Lansing     Western District of Michigan at Lansing 42 U.S.C. § 1983 SILER, Circuit Judge. Seven Michigan State University (“MSU”) employees (“Plaintiffs”) sued the City of East Lansing (“City”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations that occurred during the East Lansing Fire Department’s (“ELFD”) response to a possible anthrax contamination at MSU. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of the Plaintiffs. On appeal, the City asks us to overturn the jury verdict and grant judgment in its favor as a matter of law. Because the City failed to preserve its sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we dismiss.