CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KATHRYN SUE SIMMERMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-1019
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:15-cr-00127—Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge.
Argued: January 24, 2017
Decided and Filed: March 9, 2017
Before: MERRITT, CLAY, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. The appellant, Kathryn Simmerman, pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of embezzling $1,528,000 from Shoreline Federal Credit Union (Shoreline), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 657 (Count 1), and one count of structuring the deposits of the money she stole to evade the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3) and (d)(1) (Count 2). The district court assessed Simmerman’s total offense level to be 28, based on a base offense level of seven, a sixteen-level increase for a loss amount between $1 million and $2.5 million, a two-level increase for sophisticated means, four-level increase for jeopardizing the soundness of a financial institution, a two-level increase for abuse of a position of trust, and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and a timely plea. With a criminal history category of I, Simmerman’s guideline range was 78-97, months and she was sentenced to 78 months on Count 1 and 60 months on Count 2, to be served concurrently. Simmerman raised the following issues on appeal: whether the district court’s sentence was in error because it assessed enhancements for (1) sophisticated means (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(10)(C)); (2) jeopardizing the soundness of a financial institution (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(16)(B)(i)); and (3) abuse of a position of trust (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3). Because the district court was not clearly erroneous when it assessed the sentencing enhancements, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MARIAH WALL; CHRISTOPHER BOSTON; CRAIG MULHINCH,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MICHIGAN RENTAL; ZAKI JAMIL ALAWI; ZA HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-1988
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cv-13254—Avern Cohn, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 6, 2017
Before: DAUGHTREY, SUTTON, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. What started out as a landlord-tenant dispute has become a lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Mariah Wall, Christopher Boston, and Craig Mulhinch allege that Zaki Jamil Alawi and his companies committed federal wire, mail, and bank fraud by mishandling the security deposits the plaintiffs provided for their rental units. Because the plaintiffs did not allege a cognizable injury and because the complaint does not contain the “particularity” needed to allege fraud, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice. It opted not to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CARLIN ROBBINS; REBECCA LUTZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, dba AT&T Mobility,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-5524
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:15-cv-00071—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge.
Decided and Filed: January 30, 2017
Before: DAUGHTREY, ROGERS, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COOK, Circuit Judge. Several Kentucky residents sued to stop a company from building a cell-phone tower near their homes. They allege tort claims based on their concern that the tower will harm their health, devalue their properties, and emit excessive light and noise. The district court dismissed their claims and denied their request to amend their complaint. The residents appeal both decisions. We AFFIRM.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
In re: LANEKA MARIE STUBBS,
Debtor.
___________________________________________

SHELDON STEIN, Trustee,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LANEKA MARIE STUBBS,
Defendant-Appellee.
   Nos. 16-8025/8027
Appeal from the United States Bankrupcty Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 14-17806; Adv. No. 15-01190—Jessica E. Price Smith, Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 9, 2017
Before: HUMPHREY, OPPERMAN, and PRESTON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GUY R. HUMPHREY, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. These related appeals concern a Chapter 7 trustee’s efforts to obtain income tax returns from a debtor and the remedies which the trustee pursued upon the debtor’s failure to turn over the tax returns. The trustee appeals orders denying the trustee’s default judgment motion in an adversary proceeding seeking to revoke the debtor’s discharge for failure to turn over the tax returns; dismissing the adversary proceeding and vacating an order which required the debtor to appear for a Bankruptcy Rule 2004 examination. Because the trustee’s actions were proper, we vacate the bankruptcy court’s orders and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.