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.