In United States v. Gillam, the defendant pleaded guilty after the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 took effect to possessing with intent to distribute five or more grams of crack cocaine, an offense that carried a five-year mandatory minimum under the prior version of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b). The district court held that the Act’s increased quantity thresholds (raising the five-year minimum trigger from 5 to 28 grams) applied to defendants sentenced after the Act’s August 3, 2010 effective date, even though the offense occurred before that date. After granting downward departures for substantial assistance and overstated criminal history, the court imposed an 18-month sentence. The court reasoned that the statute’s text and purpose to “restore fairness” to crack sentencing, combined with the Sentencing Commission’s new guidelines, required application of the reduced penalties to all post-enactment sentencings and rejected the government’s contrary interpretation.
The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians sued the National Labor Relations Board in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to block the Board from pursuing an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act. The charge alleged that the tribe's labor ordinance, which barred strikes by employees of its casino resort, violated federal labor law. The court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), holding that the tribe could not obtain pre-enforcement review in district court. The core reasoning was that the NLRA establishes an exclusive administrative and appellate review scheme that precludes district court jurisdiction over such challenges at this stage.
This case involved a creditor appealing a bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment to the Chapter 7 trustee in the bankruptcy of Northern Michigan Fruit Company, Inc. The creditor sought to have its claim for unpaid brokerage fees treated as a priority claim under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) trust provisions, but the trustee argued it was only a general unsecured claim. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision, holding that the creditor failed to strictly comply with PACA's statutory requirements for preserving trust benefits by not providing the required written notice of intent to preserve the claim. The court reasoned that neither substantial compliance nor any after-the-fact documentation satisfied the notice rules under 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c), rendering the tracing issue moot. As a result, the funds in the estate could be distributed without priority for the PACA claim.
In this case, plaintiffs El Camino Resources and ePlus sued Huntington National Bank to recover millions in losses from alleged fraud by the bank's customer Cyberco Holdings, asserting claims for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting conversion, statutory conversion under Michigan law, and unjust enrichment. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, granting the bank's motion for summary judgment on the first three counts while denying it on the unjust enrichment claim. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the bank's actual knowledge of the fraud or its substantial assistance, and that the magistrate properly applied the legal standards for aiding and abetting and conversion without error. Objections regarding the review of evidence and legal conclusions were rejected as lacking substance.
The case involved debtor Julie Glazebrook's appeal from a bankruptcy court's denial of her motion to reopen a Chapter 7 case filed in 2000. In the divorce proceedings that overlapped with the bankruptcy, a July 2000 consent judgment required Glazebrook to pay 46 percent of a consolidated student loan originally taken out by both spouses; she later sought to treat that obligation as a pre-petition, dischargeable debt. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the consent judgment created a new, post-petition debt to her former spouse that was not discharged under 11 U.S.C. § 727(b). The court relied on precedent holding that a divorce decree incurs a fresh obligation at the time it is entered and also applied laches because the debtor had waited nearly nine years and made payments for seven years before challenging the debt.
This case involved Quality Stores seeking a refund of over $1 million in FICA taxes paid on severance payments made to employees terminated during store closures and bankruptcy proceedings. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the payments were not wages subject to FICA taxation, and the District Court affirmed that decision on appeal. The court reasoned that the severance payments qualified as supplemental unemployment compensation benefits under 26 U.S.C. § 3402(o) because they were made due to involuntary separation from employment resulting directly from reductions in force or discontinuance of operations, and thus fell outside the definition of wages for FICA purposes.