CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ADARIUS HARPER,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-5037
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:16-cr-20085-1—John Thomas Fowlkes Jr., District Judge.
Argued: July 26, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 9, 2017
Before: GIBBONS, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Under § 4B1.2(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines, a “crime of violence” involves “the use . . . of physical force against the person of another.” The question presented here is whether a Tennessee aggravated-assault offense that requires the defendant to be merely reckless as to whether his conduct injures another is a “crime of violence” under that definition. The district court held it was not. The government brought this appeal. A recent published decision by this court compels us to reverse.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
M. KATHLEEN MCKINNEY, Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LLC,
Respondent-Appellant.
   No. 15-5211
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 2:14-cv-02445—John Thomas Fowlkes Jr., District Judge.
Argued: October 12, 2017
Decided and Filed: November 9, 2017
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GRIFFIN, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. This case is one in a long series of disputes between the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) and Ozburn-Hessey Logistics (“OHL”). In this instance, OHL reassigned one employee—Jennifer Smith—and terminated another—Nate Jones. M. Kathleen McKinney (“McKinney”), a Regional Director for the NLRB, filed an administrative complaint with the Board claiming that OHL took these employment actions due to an anti-union motive. While that claim proceeded, McKinney sought and received temporary injunctive relief from a federal district court. The injunction gave Smith her old job back and reinstated Jones. We review the decision to grant the temporary injunction. With respect to Smith, we affirm the injunction. With respect to Jones, we find no basis for injunctive relief and vacate the district court’s decision and remand.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
HOPKINS COUNTY COAL, LLC,
Petitioner,
v.
ALEX ACOSTA, Secretary of Labor, MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,
Respondents.
   No. 16-3848
On Petition for Review from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.
Nos. 2009-820; 2009-821; 2009-822; 2009-1441.
Argued: March 15, 2017
Decided and Filed: July 18, 2017
Before: KEITH, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves the scope of the Secretary of Labor’s (“Secretary”) power to access company documents during investigations of discrimination complaints under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (“Mine Act”). An employee of Hopkins County Coal (“HCC”), Robert Gatlin (“Gatlin”), filed a discrimination complaint with the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”). After forwarding the discrimination complaint to HCC and making an initial request to interview HCC managerial employees, the MSHA sent a letter to HCC requesting to review five sets of documents that it claimed were necessary to properly evaluate Gatlin’s discrimination claim. Following a series of letters and a site visit to the mine, HCC refused to produce (1) Gatlin’s personnel file and (2) the personnel files of all other employees at the mine where Gatlin was employed who faced discipline, reprimand, or termination during the previous five years for engaging in the conduct which led to Gatlin’s termination. During the site visit, an MSHA investigator issued two citations and an order to HCC under § 104(a) and (b) of the Mine Act, and HCC contested those citations with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”). Following a hearing, an ALJ upheld the citations and order, and the Commission affirmed the decision. On appeal, HCC claims that (1) the MSHA exceeded its authority under the Mine Act by demanding company personnel documents without first identifying any basis for a discrimination claim and (2) the MSHA’s demands to inspect the records violated HCC’s Fourth Amendment rights. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.