CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LAMONT HARVEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 20-1944
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:15-cr-20589-2—Mark A. Goldsmith, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 28, 2021
Before: STRANCH, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

PER CURIAM. Lamont Harvey appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
GREGORY ACKERMAN,
Plaintiff,

ACKERMAN & SON, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 19-2056
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:17-cv-11779—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: October 21, 2020
Decided and Filed: April 28, 2021
Before: GUY, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. To recite the facts in this case is essentially to decide it. The short version is that an agency within the Department of Agriculture summarily approved a proposed plan for dry-bean crop insurance in Michigan based upon the mistaken belief that the terms of the proposed endorsement for the Michigan policy were identical to the terms of the endorsement for a Minnesota policy that the agency had approved the year before. But the terms of the two endorsements were quite different, because the Michigan endorsement contained a different pricing mechanism—for determining the beans’ “harvest price”—than the mechanism the agency had approved as part of the Minnesota endorsement. That difference later caused significant harm to Michigan farmers who had purchased the coverage, some of whom then brought this suit. In the district court, the government compounded the agency’s mistake when it mistakenly told the district court that the pricing mechanisms in the Michigan and Minnesota endorsements were the same. Based in part upon that representation, the district court granted summary judgment to the government. On appeal, the government’s brief unhelpfully elides both mistakes rather than acknowledge them; but Plaintiffs’ counsel on appeal has made the existence of those mistakes clear enough. We therefore reverse in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment.