CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO COTA-LUNA (17-3692); ANTONIO NAVARRO-GAYTAN (17-3694),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 17-3692/3694
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:16-cr-00307—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Argued: May 2, 2018
Decided and Filed: June 4, 2018
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendants Alejandro Cota-Luna and Antonio Navarro-Gaytan appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 92 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE Defendants’ convictions and sentences and REMAND their cases with instructions for the district court to reconsider whether to accept the plea agreements the parties offered under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. We further order that the cases be reassigned on remand to a different district court judge.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
SUNRISE COOPERATIVE, INC., an Ohio cooperative association,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture; FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION, an agency and body corporate of the United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 17-3807
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
No. 3:16-cv-01297—James G. Carr, District Judge.
Argued: March 6, 2018
Decided and Filed: June 4, 2018
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; WHITE and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Chief Judge. When Congress speaks clearly, administrative agencies must listen. Congress spoke clearly in the 2008 Farm Bill when it said “an entity that was approved” to provide rebates to its members may continue to do so “in a manner consistent with the payment plan approved.” But an agency, under the guise of interpretation, nevertheless imposed additional eligibility requirements on approved entities that are unmoored from the statute. We hold that the agency’s interpretation is foreclosed by the statute and reverse the judgment below.