CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TYREE SKIPPER,
Defendant-Appellant.


No. 07-3758

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 05-00479—Lesley Brooks Wells, District Judge.
Argued: October 29, 2008
Decided and Filed: January 13, 2009
Before: NORRIS, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Defendant Tyree Skipper pled guilty to a controlledsubstance offense and was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment. He now appeals his sentence, arguing that he was improperly designated a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and that his sentence was otherwise unreasonable. We affirm.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

KEVIN KEITH,
Movant,
v.
DAVID BOBBY, Warden,
Respondent.


No. 08-3908

Filed: January 13, 2009
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; and CLAY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________
ORDER
_________________________

Kevin Keith moves this court for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because Keith’s motion does not make a prima facie showing that “no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii), we deny the motion.


CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

In re: OMEGA DOOR COMPANY, INC.,
Debtor.
_____________________________________
KATHRYN A. BELFANCE,
Trustee of the Omega Door Company Reorganization Trust,
Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee,

v.

RICHARD BUONPANE and GEORGEANNE BUONPANE,
Defendants-Appellees/
Cross-Appellants.


Nos. 07-8047 and 07-8048

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division at Youngstown.
No. 03-42905
Argued: August 12, 2008
Decided and Filed: January 13, 2009
Before: GREGG, PARSONS, and RHODES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.

_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

STEVEN RHODES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. John and Tina Thompson (“the Thompsons”) purchased the stock of the debtor, Omega Door Company, Inc. (“Omega”), from Richard Buonpane (“Buonpane”) and gave him an installment note for part of the purchase price. However, Omega, not the Thompsons, made all of the payments on that note. Kathryn A. Belfance, the trustee of the Omega Door Reorganization Trust, filed this adversary proceeding against Richard and Georgeanne Buonpane (collectively “the Buonpanes”) asserting four claims. In the first two claims, the trustee seeks to recover the note payments that Omega made to the Buonpanes during the one and four years preceding Omega’s bankruptcy filing as fraudulent transfers under applicable federal and state law. The trustee’s third claim is that Omega’s payments were an illegal stock redemption under applicable state law. Finally, the trustee claims that Omega’s payments during the 90 days preceding the filing of the petition for relief were preferential transfers.

In the bankruptcy court, the parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the fraudulent transfer and illegal stock redemption claims. Because the note was given more than four years before Omega filed its bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court held that the trustee’s fraudulent transfer claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and dismissed those claims. The bankruptcy court also held that the transaction was not an illegal stock redemption and dismissed that claim. The trustee appeals those rulings.

After a trial on the preference claim, the bankruptcy court found that Richard Buonpane had a valid security interest in Omega’s assets, but that the security interest was voidable because it was not perfected. Therefore, the bankruptcy court held that the trustee could recover $20,142.50 in payments that Omega made to the Buonpanes during the 90 day preference period. The trustee’s appeal contends that Buonpane did not have a valid security interest. The Buonpanes’ appeal contends that the security interest was valid and that therefore the payments were not preferential.

For the reasons stated below, the dismissal of the trustee’s two fraudulent transfer claims is vacated. The dismissal of the illegal stock redemption claim is affirmed. The judgment on the trustee’s preference claim is also affirmed.