CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL B. JOHNSON, II,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 20-6249 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
No. 1:04-cr-00092-1—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Argued: December 9, 2021
Decided and Filed: February 23, 2022
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and READLER, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Michael B. Johnson, II (“Johnson” or “Defendant
Johnson”) appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant
to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“First Step Act” or “the Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391,
§ 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018). Johnson argues that the court’s 300 month sentence for his
2006 drug and firearm convictions is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the
reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying Johnson’s First Step
Act motion, VACATE his sentence, and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings
in accordance with this opinion. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
BROWN JUG, INC., dba Little Brown Jug, Inc., dba the
Backroom (21-2644); CHELSEA VENTURES, LLC, dba
Valiant Bar & Grill (21-2715); DINO DROP, INC., dba
M-Brew, dba Dino’s Lounge, BUCCAROO, LLC,
DM BACH ENTERPRISES, LLC, BUCAROO TOO, LLC,
and 45 DEGREE HOSPITALITY, INC., (21-2718),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee. |
Nos. 21-2644/2715/2718 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
21-2644
No. 2:20-cv-13003—Bernard A. Friedman, District Judge.
21-2715/2718
Nos. 2:20-cv-13002 and 2:20-cv-12549—Mark A. Goldsmith, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: February 23, 2022
Before: COLE, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
COLE, Circuit Judge. Businesses across the United States have turned to a variety of
sources to recoup economic losses attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs in this
consolidated appeal are businesses that operate Michigan-based restaurants and entertainment
venues that turned to their commercial property insurance policies, held by Cincinnati Insurance
Company, for relief. These policies contained three provisions under which Cincinnati Insurance
would compensate a policy holder if—and only if—the policy holder suffered direct physical
loss or damage to its covered property, or if loss to a non-policy holder’s property prevented
access to a policy holder’s property. Cincinnati Insurance denied plaintiffs’ claims for relief
because, in its view, neither the presence of the COVID-19 virus nor shutdown orders issued by
the Michigan governor constituted physical loss or damage.
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that these pandemic-related losses were
compensable under the policy. Cincinnati Insurance moved to dismiss the complaints. The
district court found that, under Michigan law, “direct physical loss” to property covers only
tangible harm or damage to property, rather than mere loss of use. Therefore, the plaintiffs had
failed to state a claim. Because we believe that the Michigan Supreme Court would agree with
this interpretation of the law, we affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaints. |
|