CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, acting in its capacity as owner trustee of AEGCO Trust 1, AEGCO Trust 2, AEGCO Trust 5, I&M Trust 1, I&M Trust 2, and I&M Trust 5, and not in their individual capacities,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AEP GENERATING COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY, an Indiana corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-3496
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:13-cv-01213—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., Chief District Judge.
Argued: March 9, 2017
Decided and Filed: April 14, 2017
Before: CLAY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Nearly twenty years after defendants built, sold, and leased back a coal-burning power plant, they committed to either make over a billion dollars of emission control improvements to the plant, or shut it down. Defendants did so by way of a consent decree, resolving various lawsuits involving alleged Clean Air Act violations at their other power plants. The genesis of this dispute is what happened next: they successfully obtained a modification to the consent decree providing that these improvements need not be made until after their lease expired, thus pushing their commitments to improve the air quality of the plant’s emissions to the plant’s owners (represented here by plaintiff, their trustee). The district court held this encumbrance did not violate the terms of the parties’ contracts governing the sale and leaseback arrangement, and that plaintiff’s breach of contract claims precluded it from maintaining an alternative cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We reverse, and remand for entry of summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RONALD BRUCE MYERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 15-2238
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:14-cr-00172—Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge.
Argued: October 18, 2016
Decided and Filed: April 14, 2017
Before: MERRITT, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Ronald Myers is a serial thief of motor homes. During his latest spree of thefts, Myers stole at least eight motor homes and then sold them to unsuspecting dealers, posing as their legitimate owner by using clone titles. A jury convicted him of multiple counts of interstate transportation of stolen vehicles, money laundering, and related conspiracies, and he was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Myers challenges his moneylaundering convictions, arguing that the district in which he stole the motor homes was not the proper venue for his money-laundering convictions, because he sold the homes outside of that district. That challenge fails, both as a statutory argument and as a constitutional argument. Proper venue lay in the trial district under the plain text of the money-laundering statute because Myers was properly charged with his interstate thefts in the district and because Myers participated in removing the theft’s proceeds out of the district. Venue was constitutionally permissible because Myers partially committed concealment money laundering in the trial district by there obtaining possession of the theft’s unlawful proceeds, which he would launder elsewhere. Myers’s other appellate arguments—alleging multiplicitous charging, improper denial of self-representation, and erroneous sentencing—also fail.