Federal Judiciary

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Valentina Pepaj petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (?BIA?), which dismissed her appeal of an Immigration Judge?s (?IJ?s?) order denying Ms. Pepaj?s motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Ms. Pepaj claims that she is entitled to a reopening of the proceedings. She asserts two alternative reasons: (1) because she was prejudiced in the earlier proceedings by her counsel?s ineffective assistance, or (2) because conditions in her country of nationality have changed. We conclude that Ms. Pepaj has not met the requirements for bringing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA?s determination that she has not shown changed country conditions. We therefore deny the petition for review.

HAROLD A. ACKERMAN, District Judge. Plaintiff Frank L. Marvin alleges that three police officers of the City of Taylor, Michigan?Commander Don Helvey, Officer Matthew Minard, and Officer Jeffrey Shewchuk?used excessive force when arresting him on July 11, 2004. The District Court denied the Defendants? summary judgment motion, which asserted qualified immunity to Marvin?s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and governmental immunity to Marvin?s pendent state law assault and battery claims. For the following reasons we REVERSE the District Court?s denial of qualified immunity and governmental immunity on the grounds that the Defendants? actions were objectively reasonable and therefore did not violate Marvin?s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.

VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge. On March 30, 2006, Carl R. Wagenknecht, Jr., (?Wagenknecht?) filed a complaint alleging a wrongful determination and levy on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (?IRS?) and seeking a redetermination of the decision. On May 30, 2006, the district court sua sponte dismissed the portion of the complaint challenging the income tax levies for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to I.R.C. § 6330(d)(1)(B), the court?s subsequent dismissal included a thirty (30) day period in which Wagenknecht could refile with the tax court the dismissed portion of the complaint. In addition, the district court, reaching the merits, sua sponte dismissed the remainder of the Complaint.

Wagenknecht now appeals the district court?s Order. He essentially argues that the district court lacked the authority to sua sponte dismiss his complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will AFFIRM the portion of the dismissal that found there was no subject matter jurisdiction and REVERSE the portion of the dismissal which decided Wagenknecht?s claims on the merits.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Sheldon Alexander, a long-time resident of the Hannahville-Potawatomi Indian Community, located in the upper peninsula of Michigan, violated the terms of his supervised release through a series of alcohol-related incidents, and the district court imposed a new sentence. Alexander challenges one of his new conditions of supervised release, which requires him to live in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for one year. Because a district court may require a defendant to ?reside in a specified place or area,? 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(13), and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that this condition ?involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary,? id. § 3583(d)(2), we affirm.