CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TYLER ALLEN SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 22-1909 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.
No. 2:22-cr-00001-1—Hala Y. Jarbou, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 31, 2023
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Tyler Smith pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute
methamphetamine. As a repeat offender, he faced a statutory mandatory minimum of 180
months. But because Smith cooperated, the government moved for a downward departure and a
release of the mandatory minimum, which the district court granted. The district court then
sentenced Smith to 158 months’ imprisonment. Smith now appeals, arguing that the district
court improperly calculated the starting guidelines range for the downward departure. Finding
no error, we affirm. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
IN RE: HOWARD D. JUNTOFF,
Debtor.
___________________________________________
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Creditor-Appellee,
v.
HOWARD D. JUNTOFF,
Debtor-Appellant. |
No. 22-3312 |
On Appeal from Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit.
No. 21-8011—James L. Croom, Scott W. Dales, Alan C. Stout, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
Nos. 1:19-bk-17032—Arthur I. Harris, Bankruptcy Judge.
Argued: July 10, 2023
Decided and Filed: July 31, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; DAVIS and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SUTTON, Chief Judge. In passing the Affordable Care Act, Congress created a “Shared
Responsibility Payment” for individuals who did not purchase qualifying individual health
insurance plans. Congress eventually eliminated the Payment. That development did not end
debates over whether the Payment is a tax or a penalty. At issue today is whether the Payment
amounts to a “tax . . . measured by income” under the Bankruptcy Code’s provisions for
prioritizing the payment of some debts over others. We join the Third and Fourth Circuits in
concluding that it is. |
|