Daily Case Update

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  This page is updated regularly.  We also keep an archive of our summaries.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

July 12th - 16th, 2010

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Workers’ compensation / R.C. 4123.57(B) / Loss of vision
- Writ of mandamus / Resentence
- Discretionary appeal
- Appeals / Final orders
- Crim.R. 32(C)
- Civil procedure / Summary judgment / Testimony
- Adoption / Preadoption placement procedures
- Public Records Act
- Judicial misconduct / Discipline
- R.C. 3929.06 / Postjudgment supplemental complaint
- Evidence / Sufficient / Weight / Motion for an acquittal
- Sentening / Community control violation
- Landlord Tenant / Illegal sublease
- Zoning / Final appealable orders
- Affidavit of Indigency / Pleas/ Knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently
- Landlord Tenant / Satisfaction of Judgment
- Miranda rights / Evidence / Insufficient / Manifest weight
- Anders v. California / Frivolous appeal
- Fair Trial / Evidence / Weight / Sufficiency / Sentence was excessive
- Stay of execution / Motion for Appropriate Relief / Under 18
- writ of habeas corpus / Harmless Error Analysis / Miranda
- Writ of Habeas corpus / Certificate of appealability / Miranda rights
- Investment Advisers Act / Hedge Fund / Jury Instructions / Evidence / New Trial
- Evidence / Sufficient / Instructions
- Healthcare fraud / Ineffective assistance of counsel / Restitution
- Education / ADA / Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act / Attorney Fees
- Immigration and Nationality Act / False represented as a U.S. citizen / Adjustment of status
- Election / Constitutional law / Party affiliation / Solicitation
- Fast track early disposition programs for illegal reentry cases
- Petition for habeas corpus / Ineffective counsel
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

State ex rel. La-Z-Boy Furniture Galleries v. Thomas (Slip Opinion)(July 13, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3215.pdf
-  Workers’ compensation — R.C. 4123.57(B) — Loss of vision —
Claimant’s industrial injury dislodged corneal transplant
necessitated by nonallowed condition of keratoconus — Preinjury
transplant corrected claimant’s vision from 20/200 to 20/50 — Postinjury
surgery corrected vision from 20/200 back to 20/50 — Commission did not
abuse discretion in using 20/50 preinjury corrected vision as measure of
preinjury visual acuity for purposes of calculating award.
 
State v. Johnson (Slip Opinion)(July 13, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3214.pdf
-  Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.
 
Chojnacki v. Cordray (Slip Opinion)(July 13, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3212.pdf
-  Causes dismissed as moot.
 
State ex rel. Barr v. Sutula (Slip Opinion)(July 13, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3213.pdf
-  Mandamus — Court of appeals correctly held that appellant is not
entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel judge to resentence him.
 
State v. Caskey (Slip Opinion)(July 14, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3232.pdf
-  Discretionary appeal accepted, judgment of the court of appeals
reversed on the authority of State v. Clayborn, and cause remanded to
the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with State v.
Clayborn.
 
State ex rel. Rittner v. Court of Claims (Slip Opinion)(July 14, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3233.pdf
-  Appeals — Final orders — R.C. 2505.02 — Denial of motion for leave
to file objection without service not appealable.
 

State ex rel. Alicea v. Krichbaum (Slip Opinion)(July 14, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3234.pdf
-  Criminal procedure — Crim.R. 32(C) — Requirements for judgment entry
of conviction.
 
State v. Baker (Slip Opinion)(July 14, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3235.pdf
-  Cause dismissed because the court determines that no conflict
exists.
 
Pettiford v. Aggarwal (Slip Opinion)(July 14, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3237.pdf
-  Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Contradiction between affidavit
and deposition testimony of expert witness — Explanation required.
 
Estate of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc. (Slip Opinion)(July 15, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3264.pdf
-  R.C. 3929.06 — Postjudgment supplemental complaint brought by
successful plaintiff against tortfeasor’s insurer — Previous declaratory
judgment obtained by insurer declaring that insurer has no duty to
indemnify insured is binding on plaintiff only if declaratory judgment
action was initiated by insured or if plaintiff participated in
declaratory judgment action.
 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell (Slip Opinion)(July 15, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3265.pdf
-  Judicial misconduct — Discipline — Improper investigation of
criminal matter — Failure to act in courteous, dignified manner —
Improper use of judicial office to pressure persons into action —
Improper handling of indigency determinations — One-year suspension with
six months stayed on condition of no further violations.
 
State ex rel. Bardwell v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)(July 15, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3274.pdf
-  Public Records Act — Reports filed by pawnbrokers — Judgment
reversed.
 
Whitley v. River's Bend Health Care (Slip Opinion)(July 15, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3269.pdf
-  Appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted.
 
In re Adoption of J.A.S. (Slip Opinion)(July 15, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-ohio-3270.pdf
-  Adoption — R.C. 5103.16(D) — Preadoption placement procedures apply
even though prospective adoptive parents have legal custody.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 
*** Judgments***

State of Ohio vs. Kevin Walton (July 14, 2010)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090831_07142010.pdf
-  The trial court found Kevin Walton guilty of domestic violence. The
court sentenced him to 30 days’ incarceration with credit for 11 days
served, fined him $50, and ordered him to pay costs. He asserts (1) his
conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence, (2) his conviction
was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (3) the trial court
erred when it denied in part his Crim.R. 29 motion for an acquittal.
Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Tyrone Frazier (July 14, 2010)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090820_07142010.pdf
-  Frazier pled guilty to one count of passing bad checks in violation
of R.C. 2913.11(B) and to one count of theft of a motor vehicle in
violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(3). On July 12, 2007, the trial court
sentenced Frazier to community-control sanctions for a period of three
years on both counts. The trial court warned Frazier that he would
receive 18 months‟ incarceration on the theft-of-a-motor-vehicle count
and an additional 12 months‟ incarceration on the passing-bad-checks
count if he violated any of the terms of his community control. Frazier
violated his community-control and the trial court sentenced him to two
and one-half years' incarceration. Frazier argues (1) the trial court
abused its discretion by imposing maximum, consecutive sentences and (2)
the trial court erred when it did not properly calculate and incorporate
his jail-time credit in the court's sentencing entries. Judgment
AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Mario Johnson (July 14, 2010)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090804_07142010.pdf
-  Johnson was indicted on two counts of trafficking in marijuana, one
count of marijuana possession, and one count of having a weapon while
under a disability. He pleaded guilty to one of the trafficking counts
and to the weapon-under-disability charge. He was sentenced to an agreed
term of five years in prison. This court reversed his sentence because
the trial court had failed to impose a mandatory fine for the
trafficking offense. On remand, the trial court resentenced Johnson
pursuant to the agreement and imposed the fine. Counsel has advised
Johnson of this determination and has asked this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether the proceedings
below were free from prejudicial error. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
CYC, Inc. v. Mark Lomack, d.b.a. Lomack's Quick Shop (July 14, 2010)
-  http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090781_07142010.pdf
-  CYC filed a forcible-entry-and-detainer action against Lomack,
seeking to remove him from property owned by CYC. CYC alleged that
Lomack was occupying the property unlawfully. Lomack filed an answer in
which he asserted a defense of res judicata, contending that the issue
of possession had been decided in an earlier proceeding. In that
proceeding, in the case numbered 07CV-34128, CYC had sought to evict
Lomack from the property. Following a jury trial, the trial court had
entered a judgment that Cedric Stone, the principal of CYC, Inc., was
not entitled to evict Lomack, and that Lomack was not liable to CYC for
trespass. This court recently affirmed the trial court‟s judgment in
that case. In addition to his answer in the present case, Lomack
asserted a counterclaim for reimbursement of money that he had paid for
water at the property. CYC, Inc., appeals the trial court‟s entry that
granted summary judgment to Mark Lomack on CYC‟s claims and that granted
judgment in favor of Lomack on his counterclaim. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Preserve Hyde Park, et al. vs. Cincinnati Zoning Board of Appeals, et al. (July 14, 2010)
- http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090734_07142010.pdf
-  Defendant-appellant/cross-appellee, Zoning Board of Appeals, City of Cincinnati (“the ZBA”), and
intervenor-defendant-appellant/cross-appellee, Hyde Park Community
United Methodist Church (“the Church”), appeal the judgment of the
Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas reversing the decision of the ZBA
and remanding the case to the ZBA for further proceedings.
Plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant, Preserve Hyde Park (“PHP”), appeals
the judgment to the extent that the trial court limited the scope of the
administrative appeal and adopted the magistrate’s definition of the
term “religious assembly.” The trial court’s order was not final and
appealable. Accordingly, this court is without jurisdiction over the
case, and we sua sponte dismiss the appeals.
 
State of Ohio vs. Ronnie Coffee (July 14, 2010)
- http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090699_07142010.pdf
-  Coffee pleaded guilty to two counts of gross sexual imposition,
third-degree felonies under R.C. 2907.05(A)(4). The trial court imposed
an agreed sentence of five years in prison on each of the counts, to be
served consecutively. Defense counsel and Coffee individually filed a
motion to withdraw Coffee’s pleas. The trial court denied them. Coffee
argues (1) the trial court erred in denying his motions to withdraw his
guilty pleas and (2) the trial court’s sentencing entry failed to
conform to the sentencing transcript because it did not remit a $10,000
fine. REMANDED to remitted fines, otherwise judgment AFFIRMED.
 
Claudia Harrod vs. Doug Openheimer and Ann Openheimer (July 14, 2010)
- http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090693_07142010.pdf
-  Harrod, a landlord, filed a complaint against defendants-appellees,
Doug and Ann Oppenheimer, her former tenants. The Oppenheimers’ counsel
presented Harrod with a check for $153, which was for the damages of
$100 plus costs. A satisfaction of judgment signed by both Harrod’s and
the Oppenheimers’ attorneys was journalized. Once Harrod’s counsel
signed the satisfaction of judgment, the case was over, and no further
proceedings were possible. This appeal is moot, and we, therefore,
dismiss it.
 
State of Ohio vs. Cameo Hamilton (July 14, 2010)
- http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090680_07142010.pdf
-  Hamilton was found guilty following a bench trial of one count of
receiving stolen property, specifically a motor vehicle. The trial court
sentenced Hamilton to three years of community control and ordered him,
among other things, to complete a GED program, maintain full-time
employment, submit to random drug and alcohol screenings, perform
community service, and pay restitution, probation fees, court costs, and
public-defender fees. Hamilton argues (1) his conviction was based on
insufficient evidence and was against the manifest weight of the
evidence, and (2) the trial court erred by denying his motion to
suppress his statements to police. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 
State of Ohio vs. Dennis Tucker (July 14, 2010)
- http://www.hamilton-co.org/appealscourt/docs/decisions/C-090442_07142010.pdf
-  Tucker was arrested for operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited
alcohol concentration of .192 grams in his breath. Counsel has asked
this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine
whether the proceedings below were free from prejudicial error. Judgment
AFFIRMED.
 

*** Opinions ***
 
State of Ohio vs. Ravea Garnett (July 16, 2010)
- http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/1/2010/2010-ohio-3303.pdf
-  Following a jury trial, defendant-appellant Ravea Garnett was
convicted of two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, three
counts of felonious assault, carrying a concealed weapon, and having
weapons under a disability. The trial court imposed an aggregate
sentence of 44½ years’ to life incarceration. In this appeal, Garnett
argues that his right to a fair and impartial trial was violated, that
his convictions were against the weight and sufficiency of the evidence,
and that his sentence was excessive. Garnett’s assignments of error are
overruled with the exception that the trial court erred in failing to
merge the attempted-murder and felonious-assault counts for sentencing
and in sentencing Garnett to 18 years’ to life imprisonment for murder.
Felonious assault and attempted murder are allied offenses of similar
import for which only one sentence should have been imposed, and the
applicable statutory range for Garnett’s murder conviction was 15 years
to life. The sentences for those offenses are vacated, and this cause is
remanded for the imposition of the appropriate sentences. In all other
respects, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

In re William Garner v. (July 12, 2010) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0197p-06.pdf
-  William Garner, an Ohio inmate sentenced to death, moves this court
to stay his impending execution, which is scheduled for July 13, 2010,
at 10:00 a.m. Garner bases the stay motion on his application for
permission to file a second or successive habeas petition, an earlier
petition having been fully litigated and ultimately denied. His petition
is based on Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), in which the Supreme
Court held that the death penalty may not be imposed for crimes
committed by someone under 18 years of age. Garner was 19 years old at
the time of the crime, but his counsel urge that Roper extends to adults
whose mental age is that of a juvenile. Roper was decided five years
before Garner’s counsel brought this claim to the state courts for the
first time. We deny the motion to stay.
 
Donovan Simpson v. Wanza Jackson (July 13, 2010) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0198p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Donovan Simpson, an Ohio inmate, seeks habeas relief from
his convictions for aggravated murder, murder, five counts of attempted
murder, aggravated arson, and five counts of felonious assault, all
arising from a fatal arson. An Ohio jury convicted him under an aiding
and abetting theory for assisting another individual in preparing a
“Molotov cocktail” and helping the individual flee after throwing the
bomb at a house, resulting in the death of a child sleeping inside.
Simpson claims that four of his statements—made on April 24, April 27,
June 16, and June 20, 2000—were erroneously admitted into evidence in
violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny,
as well as in violation of the Fifth Amendment. For the reasons set
forth below, we find that the June 16th statement was properly admitted
into evidence but that the state court’s admission of the statements
made on April 24th, April 27th, and June 20th was contrary to and an
unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent at the time the
conviction became final. These errors were harmless as to Simpson’s
convictions for aggravated arson and felonious assault, so we deny
relief as to those convictions. However, the errors were not harmless as
to the convictions for aggravated murder, murder, and attempted murder,
so we grant Simpson a writ of habeas corpus as to those convictions.
 
Treesh v. Bagley (July 13, 2010) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0200p-06.pdf
-  A state court jury convicted Frederick Treesh of aggravated murder
and several other charges, and the court sentenced him to death. The
Ohio courts upheld his conviction and sentence on direct review and in
post-conviction proceedings. Treesh petitioned the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied the petition but granted Treesh
a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on two of his claims. Treesh
appeals those claims and requests that we grant a COA as to a third
claim. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial
of Treesh’s petition, and DENY his request for an expanded COA.
 
USA v. Mark Lay (July 14, 2010) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0201p-06.pdf
-  Defendant Mark D. Lay appeals his fraud convictions related to a
hedge fund investment by the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. Lay
primarily argues that the jury instructions were improper and that
insufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict because, as a hedge
fund adviser, Lay had a fiduciary relationship only with the hedge fund,
not with its investors. Lay also seeks a new trial based on three of the
district court’s evidentiary rulings and its restitution and forfeiture
determinations. Because a hedge fund adviser can, in some circumstances,
have a fiduciary relationship with an investor, the jury instructions
were correct and sufficient evidence supports Lay’s conviction. We also
reject Lay’s challenges to the district court’s evidentiary rulings and
its restitution and forfeiture determinations.
 
USA v. Andrew Siemaszko (July 15, 2010) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0202p-06.pdf
-  Defendant–appellant Andrew Siemaszko appeals his conviction on three
counts of concealing material facts and making false statements to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001
and 2. On appeal, Siemaszko argues that there was insufficient evidence
to support his convictions and that the government’s presentation of
evidence and an improper jury instruction constructively amended the
indictment. For the following reasons, we find that there was sufficient
evidence to support each of Siemaszko’s convictions and that Siemaszko
failed to establish that a constructive amendment of the indictment
occurred. Therefore, we affirm.
 
USA v. David Geisen (July 15, 2010) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0203p-06.pdf
-  Defendant–appellant David Geisen appeals his conviction on three
counts of concealing a material fact and making a false statement to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001
and 2. On appeal, Geisen argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support his convictions and that the district court erred by giving a
deliberate ignorance instruction and denying a motion to admit evidence
of Geisen’s rejection of a pre-indictment deferred prosecution
agreement. For the following reasons, we find that there was sufficient
evidence to support each of Geisen’s convictions and that the district
court did not err in its instruction or exclusion of evidence.
Therefore, we affirm.
 
USA v. Martin Williams (July 15, 2010) (Appeal from N.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0204p-06.pdf
-  A jury convicted Martin T. Williams on five counts of fraudulently
overbilling Medicare, Medicaid, and several private insurance companies
as an employee of a psychiatric medical practice. The district court
sentenced Williams to 12 months of probation and ordered him to pay
restitution in the amount of $822,459.21. Williams appeals his
conviction, as well as the amount of restitution that he was ordered to
pay. He also brings a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the portion of the district
court’s judgment relating to Williams’s conviction, DISMISS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE Williams’s ineffective assistance-of-counsel claim, VACATE the
portion of the district court’s judgment that concerns restitution, and
REMAND the restitution issue for further consideration.
 
Children's Center for Development Enrich v. Kathi Machle (July 16, 2010) (Appeal from S.D. OH)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0205p-06.pdf
-  Courtland and Michelle Bishop and their minor disabled son CB
brought suit against the private school to which CB had been assigned
after the school expelled CB. The district court dismissed the claims,
and the Bishops initiated administrative proceedings. The administrator
entered a final decision dismissing the school as an improper party to
the action; the administrator later issued two additional final
decisions reiterating that the school was dismissed as an improper
party. The school filed this action as an appeal of the administrator’s
decision and to assert separate claims for legal fees. The district
court reasoned that the appeal was untimely and attorney’s fees were not
authorized and dismissed the case. For the reasons discussed herein, we
affirm the decision of the district court.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

Carlos Ferrans v. Eric Holder, Jr. (July 12, 2010) (Appeal from Board of Immigration Appeals)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0196p-06.pdf
-  Carlos Arturo Ferrans (“Ferrans”) seeks review of the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) finding him ineligible for
relief from removal because he falsely represented that he was a United
States citizen to procure private employment. For the reasons which
follow, Ferrans’s petition will be DENIED.
 
Marcus Carey v. Stephen Wolnitzek (July 13, 2010) (Appeal from E.D. KY)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0199p-06.pdf
-  There is room for debate about whether the election of state court
judges is a good idea or a bad one. Yet there is no room for debate
that, if a State opts to select its judges through popular elections, it
must comply with the First Amendment in doing so. In this case, we have
upheld some components of Kentucky’s Code of Judicial Conduct,
invalidated others and sought clarification of still one other
provision. Through it all, no one should lose sight of the reality that
a judicial candidate’s right to engage in certain types of speech says
nothing about the desirability of that speech. The First Amendment
protects the meek and brazen, the “offensive” and agreeable. Texas v.
Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989). Today’s case is about the meaning of
the First Amendment, not about the virtues of some types of judicial
campaign speech relative to others. For these reasons, we affirm the
district court’s judgment as to the party affiliation and solicitation
clauses and vacate its judgment as to the commits clause and remand the
case for further consideration of the meaning and validity of that
clause.
 
USA v. Camacho-Arellano (July 16, 2010) (Appeal from W.D. TN)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0206p-06.pdf
-  Isidro Camacho-Arellano, a Mexican citizen, pleaded guilty to
unlawful reentry into the United States after deportation and was
sentenced to fifty-seven months of incarceration. Camacho-Arellano seeks
a remand for the district judge to consider whether to impose a lower
sentence based on the disparities created by the existence of
“fast-track” early-disposition programs for illegal-reentry cases in
other jurisdictions. He also argues that the district judge’s reliance
on incorrect information about the prevalence of fast-track programs
rendered the sentence procedurally unreasonable. Because
Camacho-Arellano was sentenced before Kimbrough v. United States, 552
U.S. 85 (2007), and because Kimbrough permits district court judges to
impose a variance based on disagreement with the policy underlying a
guideline (here, the fast-track disparity), we VACATE Camacho-Arellano’s
sentence and REMAND the case to the district court for resentencing.
 
Richard Shaneberger v. Kurt Jones (July 16, 2010)(Appeal from E.D. MI)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0207p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner Richard Shaneberger appeals from the district court’s
denial of his petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Shaneberger contends that the district court erred when it found
that he failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel. We affirm.
 

Daily Case Updates