CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DENNIS BLACK; CHARLES CUNNINGHAM; KENNETH HOLLIS; DELPHI SALARIED RETIREE ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 19-1419
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:09-cv-13616—Arthur J. Tarnow, District Judge.
Argued: January 28, 2020
Decided and Filed: September 1, 2020
Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SILER, Circuit Judge. Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) creates an insurance program to protect employees’ pension benefits. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”)—a wholly-owned corporation of the United States government—is charged with administering the pension-insurance program.

In this case, PBGC terminated the “Salaried Plan,” a defined-benefit plan sponsored by Delphi Corporation. The termination was executed through an agreement between PBGC and Delphi pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1342(c). The appellants—retirees affected by termination of the Salaried Plan—bring several challenges to the termination. First, the retirees argue that section 1342(c) requires a judicial adjudication before a pension plan may be terminated. Second, the retirees contend that termination of the plan violated their due process rights. Third, the retirees assert that PBGC’s decision to terminate the Salaried Plan was arbitrary and capricious.

But the retirees’ arguments do not require reversal. First, subsection 1342(c) permits termination of distressed pension plans by agreement between PBGC and the plan administrator without court adjudication. Second, the retirees have not demonstrated that they have a property interest in the full amount of their vested, but unfunded, pension benefits. Third, PBGC’s decision to terminate the Salaried Plan was not arbitrary and capricious. We affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRYAN BAILEY (18-5607); CALVIN BAILEY (18-5901); SANDRA BAILEY (18-5903),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 18-5607/5901/5903
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson.
No. 1:15-cr-10011—S. Thomas Anderson, District Judge.
Argued: January 29, 2020
Decided and Filed: September 1, 2020
Before: SILER, GIBBONS, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Sandra Bailey, Calvin Bailey, and their son Bryan Bailey of conspiring to commit healthcare fraud and other related crimes. The district court sentenced Sandra to 120 months’ imprisonment, Calvin to forty-five months’ imprisonment, and Bryan to eighty-four months’ imprisonment. Sandra, Calvin, and Bryan bring a number of challenges to their convictions, and Sandra and Calvin also challenge their sentences. Most of those challenges lack merit. We agree with Sandra, however, that the district court miscalculated her Guidelines-range sentence when it erroneously imposed a two-level increase in her offense level for using “mass marketing” in her scheme. We also agree with Calvin that the district court incorrectly calculated the loss amount for which he was responsible—and by extension, his Guidelines-range sentence—by holding him responsible for losses beyond those he agreed to jointly undertake. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions of Sandra, Calvin, and Bryan. We vacate Sandra’s and Calvin’s sentences, however, and remand to the district court for resentencing.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOYCE RAMSEY (19-1579); JOSEPH FORTIN (19-1581); MICHAEL SHOOPS (19-1586); ANTHONY HUTCHINS (19- 1889); VICKY HARRIS (19-1977); SUSAN FLACK (19- 3886),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.
   Nos. 19-1579/1581/1586/1889/1977/3886
Appeals from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
19-1579: No. 2:17-cv-13713—Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge;
19-1581: No. 2:18-cv-10187—David M. Lawson, District Judge;
19-1586: No. 2:18-cv-10444—Nancy G. Edmunds, District Judge;
19-1889: No. 2:18-cv-10182—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge;
19-1977: No. 2:18-cv-11042—Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
19-3886: No. 2:18-cv-00501—Sarah Daggett Morrison, District Judge.

Argued: May 1, 2020
Decided and Filed: September 1, 2020
Before SILER, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Social Security disability benefit and supplemental security income benefit claimants (“claimants”) appeal from district court orders rejecting their Appointments Clause challenges to the administrative law judges (ALJ) who heard their cases, on the basis that they forfeited the issue by not raising it during their administrative proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we VACATE the judgments of the district courts and REMAND these consolidated cases to the Social Security Administration for new hearings before constitutionally appointed ALJs other than the ALJs who presided over claimants’ first hearings.